User Profile

But if we truly wish to challenge capitalism, we must redefine abundance in such a way that it cannot be confused with capitalistic consumerism. We should stop betting our future on the possibility that exponential growth in technological development will take care of things for us, exempting us from the need to modify our mode of living. Rather, we must change our mode of living so we can discover new forms of abundance. In short, we must break the link between economic growth and abundance and think seriously about how abundance can be linked to degrowth. We must face reality in our call for a new abundance. If we do, we'll notice something right away. The world undergoes 'structural reforms' over and over to foster growth, and yet the results are always the same: gaps widen between the rich and poor, and rates of both poverty and austerity increase. The fact is, the wealth held by the twenty-six richest capitalists in the world is equivalent to the total assets belonging to the world's poorest 3.8 billion people (nearly half the world's population). Can this be a coincidence? Surely not - we should think of it the following way. We usually think of capitalism as something that provides wealth and abundance, but the truth is quite the opposite. Capitalism is a system that functions by producing scarcity.

— Slow Down by Kōhei Saitō (Page 148)

We must bring about a free, equal, just and sustainable society that overcomes class divides of exploitation and domination and that radically revolutionizes labour. This is the true face of degrowth for a new generation.

— Slow Down by Kōhei Saitō (Page 85 - 86)

Under capitalism, we have consistently sought to raise the GDP in the belief that economic growth brings prosperity to everyone. Yet this prosperity has yet to arrive for the average person. In truth, the GDP is an extremely superficial indicator developed around a hundred years ago, and one that has enormous statistical limitations. Given how much we've progressed since then, why are we still allowing ourselves to be manipulated by this crude measure? As its antithesis, degrowth emphasizes forms of prosperity and quality of life that aren't necessarily reflected in the GDP. Degrowth is a transition from quantity (growth) to quality (flourishing). It's a grand plan to transform the economy to a model that prioritizes the shrinking of the economic gap, the expansion of social security and the maximization of free time, all while respecting planetary boundaries. Therefore, if new coal-burning plants continue to be built, as they are in Japan, degrowth is not taking place. If growth is stalling but the gap between the rich and the poor is still widening, degrowth is not taking place. Even if production shrinks, the resulting rise in unemployment is a far cry from 'maximizing free time'. What needs to be reduced is the number of SUVs and the amount of beef and fast fashion being consumed, not funding for education, social security and the arts.

— Slow Down by Kōhei Saitō (Page 84)

The Imperial Mode of Living refers, essentially, to the societies of the Global North that rely on large-scale production and consumption. This is what makes our rich lifestyle possible. Beneath this surface, there exists a structure by which the cost of our consumption is extracted from the lands and labour of the people of the Global South. Without the exploitation of others who pay the cost, the Imperial Mode of Living would be unsustainable. Lowering the standard of living for those in the Global South is a prerequisite for the workings of capitalism, and the power imbalance between North and South is no anomaly - it is, in fact, a result of the system functioning normally.

We experience this way of life as desirable, though, and are loath to give it up. If we were to acknowledge the state of things in the Global South, we would be forced to lower our own standard of living. Our way of life is, in fact, a terrible thing. We are all complicit in the Imperial Mode of Living.

— Slow Down by Kōhei Saitō (Page 9)

The only way to avoid this trap is to disengage from a consumer culture that equates car ownership with independence, while also reducing the volume of everything we consume. We must make a major incision into capitalism itself to heal the world. This is why green Keynesianism is not enough. Make no mistake - Green New Deal-style governmental platforms enabling large-scale investment into remaking nations at a fundamental level are absolutely indispensable in the struggle to combat climate change. It's undeniable that we must make the transition to solar energy, electric vehicles and the like. Public transportation systems must be expanded and made free to all, bicycle lanes must be built, public housing fitted with solar panels must be created - these sorts of works projects, driven by public spending, are vital. But these things are simply not enough. It might sound counter intuitive, but the goal of any Green New Deal should not be economic growth, but rather the scaling down and slowing down of the economy. Measures to stop climate change cannot double as ways to further economic growth. These measures will only work if their only goal is stopping climate change. Indeed, the less such measures aim to grow the economy, the higher the possibility they'll work. It also would ease the issues related to lithium and cobalt extraction in Chile and Congo (though environmental problems will nonetheless still surely occur). By contrast, the only thing left to say about Green New Deal proposals aiming to promote unlimited economic growth at this point is, 'The road to extinction is paved with good intentions.'

— Slow Down by Kōhei Saitō (Page 56 - 57)

The market could sell both the poison and its antidote, but it cared little about the right ratio of the two.

— Half-Earth Socialism by Troy Vettese, Drew Pendergrass (4%)

Israeli history can be split into two eras: before and after 1967. Before the Six-Day War, Israeli policy was not noble but at least gave the rhetorical impression of (sometimes) opposing repression. In 1963, Foreign Minister Golda Meir told the United Nations General Assembly that Israel “naturally opposes policies of apartheid, colonialism and racial or religious discrimination wherever they exist” because Jews understood what it meant to be victims. Israel bonded with newly independent African states, enjoying their postcolonial freedoms, and African nations backed Israel at the UN. Many Israelis then and now viewed their country as a liberation struggle akin to being freed from colonial bondage. They had no time for the view that Zionism was tinged with colonialism. (…) Journalist Sash Polakow-Suransky recounts in his book on Israel’s secret relationship with apartheid South Africa, The Unspoken Alliance, that 1967 saw a watershed in Israel’s defense posture. Assisted by Soviet and Arab propaganda, “Israel’s image as a state of Holocaust survivors in need of protection gradually deteriorat[ed] into that of an imperialist stooge of the West.” Thereafter, many Third World nations turned away from Israel and the “Israeli government abandoned the last vestiges of moral foreign policy in favour of hard-nosed realpolitik.” Partnering with the world’s most brutal tyrants followed. Israel’s relationship with Iran under the Shah was an early example.

— The Palestine Laboratory by Antony Loewenstein