Opinion: Economic degrowth based on mutual care is viable but falls flat due to fear mongering.
———-

What does the idea of “degrowth” mean to you? As we learned about it in my environmental studies class this term, a degrowth system functions as the opposite of capitalism in that it prioritizes the well-being of people and the planet over constant profit. Today we place so much emphasis not only on corporations earning money, but on increasing profits from previous years. It seems that companies have an insatiable appetite for constant growth, and this comes at the expense of working class people and the future of the planet.

Degrowth, on the other hand, moves away from this incessant need for more. By changing to the end goal from constantly increasing profit to functioning sustainably, we can focus more on the actual needs of the population. This could look like working fewer hours to enable people to spend time with their families or improve their communities, limiting environmental degradation in the form of fossil fuels and mass production and setting up access to food, education, transportation or other necessities. In a system focused on degrowth, the needs of people are prioritized. It’s more important for everyone to access important resources and enjoy their free time than for massive corporations to rake in another billion dollars. After all, there are only so many people on the planet. At some point, Netflix will run out of new subscribers. Though capitalism pushes the idea of constant movement, it can only expand so far.

Now if you value the well-being of people other than yourself, the aforementioned features of degrowth probably look pretty great. When you consider them being tied to the goals of socialism, does your opinion change? When I say “socialism,” I’m not referring to the dictionary definition but rather the modern colloquial meaning: policies based on the wealthiest members of society sharing resources with the less fortunate. Today you’ll often see it used as a derogatory term for any policy that aims to help people or progress society, like free public transportation or student loan forgiveness. Out of fear of the word, we’ve started to fight the idea of improving anyone’s life if that change leads to any personal expense.

As for me, I’m tired of watching politicians run around in circles debating semantics instead of working to enact policies to actually solve problems and help people. The recent House resolution denouncing “the horrors of socialism” is nothing more than a ridiculous, performative distraction used to fight an imaginary enemy. Oh no, social progress! The fact that the resolution actually passed is insulting. It makes no distinction between socialism, communism and authoritarianism and this willful ignorance is used to gross effect. The resolution ends with the sentiment that “this Congress…opposes the implementation of socialist policies in the United States of America.” It’s great to know we won’t be moving forward any time soon.

So if the spineless old politicians proudly oppose socialism from their comfortable homes in the pockets of the country’s wealthiest corporate leaders, who supports it? The answer is overwhelming young people, with a 2019 Gallup poll suggesting that nearly half Americans born after 1980 have a positive view of socialism, which is a marked increase from previous generations. UO even has a Young Democratic Socialists chapter, so the ideology is thriving among the nation’s youth.

While I can’t speculate on the reasoning of this entire group, I can certainly explain my own thinking on the issue: Capitalism isn’t meeting everyone’s needs anymore, and it’s arguable that it never did. One of my earliest memories is of every adult in my life worrying during the 2008 financial crisis. Living in Portland and Eugene, I’ve seen the widespread despair of homelessness. Throughout the pandemic, I saw people struggling to afford rent after unexpectedly finding themselves out of work. The shadow of climate change has lingered over everything, a constant reminder of the necessity of taking action. At the same time, I’ve watched billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos line their pockets while the workers at their companies struggle to afford their basic needs. What kind of system could ethically allow the existence of the ultra wealthy when other people don’t even have access to clean water?

In the end, it all comes back to the classic childhood mantra that “sharing is caring.” Everyone seemingly has an instinctual knee jerk negative reaction to the word “socialism,” but I encourage you to stop and apply some critical thought. Would it really be so terrible if everyone’s needs were taken care of? If you consider the struggles of the people around you, I think you’ll find the right answer.