What do you think?
Rate this book
The Future is Degrowth: A Guide to a World Beyond Capitalism
We need to break free from the capitalist economy. Degrowth gives us the tools to bend its bars. Economic growth isn’t working, and it cannot be made to work. Offering a counter-history of how economic growth emerged in the context of colonialism, fossil-fueled industrialization, and capitalist modernity, The Future Is Degrowth argues that the ideology of growth conceals the rising inequalities and ecological destructions associated with capitalism, and points to desirable alternatives to it. Not only in society at large, but also on the left, we are held captive by the hegemony of growth. Even proposals for emancipatory Green New Deals or postcapitalism base their utopian hopes on the development of productive forces, on redistributing the fruits of economic growth and technological progress. Yet growing evidence shows that continued economic growth cannot be made compatible with sustaining life and is not necessary for a good life for all. This book provides a vision for postcapitalism beyond growth. Building on a vibrant field of research, it discusses the political economy and the politics of a non-growing economy. It charts a path forward through policies that democratise the economy, “now-topias” that create free spaces for experimentation, and counter-hegemonic movements that make it possible to break with the logic of growth. Degrowth perspectives offer a way to step off the treadmill of an alienating, expansionist, and hierarchical system. A handbook and a manifesto, The Future Is Degrowth is a must-read for all interested in charting a way beyond the current crises.
320 pages, Paperback
Published June 28, 2022
190 people are currently reading
4166 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 113 reviews
April 16, 2024
A toolbox to build Degrowth as common sense…
Preamble:
--Of the 3 intros to degrowth I’ve read, I would rank as follows:
i) Hickel’s Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World: foundational.
ii) This book: useful survey on "why?", but missing "how?".
iii) Saito’s Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto: niche insights, also missing "how?". Since Saito uses the label “degrowth communism”, my review of Saito’s book discusses how labels can be such distractions. I’m fine with “post growth” if “degrowth” sounds negative. Let’s move on.
The Good:
--This book’s key feature is to synthesize the diverse influences of “degrowth” to raise awareness of an alternative common sense (already existing in diverse movements) to challenge the growth paradigm (which on the surface seems insurmountable).
--Using Wallerstein’s framing, we can see how far the growth paradigm stretches:
a) Pro-Capitalist (“Spirit of Davos”, home of the World Economic Forum):
--Liberal growth: including those trying to address climate change, like Bill Gates (How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need)
--Reactionary growth: for “reactionary” in general, see The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump
b) Anti-Capitalist/Socialist (“Spirit of Porto Alegre”, home of the World Social Forum):
--Left growth (productivism)
--Left degrowth: there are opposing ideologies that may also critique growth (i.e. conservative/green fascism/anti-modernism/liberal environmentalism), but the book distinguishes “degrowth” for its (Leftist) socioecological justice principles.
--Here is the toolbox assembled:
1) Ecological:
--Referring to Ecological/Biophysical Economics, the focus here is society’s material/energy throughput (vs. sources) and waste (vs. sinks).
--This tradition has a strong critique of mainstream (“Neoclassical”) Economics, which conceptualizes “the economy” as a circulation of inputs (labour/capital/money/goods), where growth stems from knowledge/technology/capital. Crucially, Neoclassical Economics assumes circular reproduction of its inputs while dismissing the environment (raw materials/energy/land) and reproductive labour (mostly unwaged). See Keen’s The New Economics: A Manifesto
--The critique uses systems science (Thinking in Systems: A Primer) to consider the flows (energy/materials extracted, used and wasted; also monetary flows) and stocks (sources and sinks; also biomass/infrastructure/artifacts), revealing society’s expanding social metabolism of material/energy, including the “Great Acceleration” since WWII:
-Facing the Anthropocene: Fossil Capitalism and the Crisis of the Earth System
-Earth System Science: A Very Short Introduction
--The material analysis is clear: growth is now unsustainable (overshooting our planetary boundaries); degrowth is inevitable, so we must choose “degrowth by design” to avoid “degrowth by disaster”. Further analysis reveal “green growth” resulting in energy addition rather than energy transition (to sustainability), where empirical material flow analysis reveals the hope of “decoupling” economic growth from material/energy use as insufficient (relative efficiency gains are swamped by absolute increases), etc.
2) Socioeconomic/Anti-Capitalist:
--I combined “socioeconomic” with “anti-capitalist” as I don’t see a proper distinction made in the book.
--Referring to Wallerstein’s conception of the “modern world system” (capitalism), the roots are traced to the 16th century European arms race (“war capitalism”), leading to colonial enterprises which developed into joint-stock companies (The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power). For a debate (I prefer a synthesis) on this with orthodox Marxism, see Wallerstein’s World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction.
--Capitalism’s endless accumulation transformed social metabolism from circular to linear. Given capitalist profit-seeking’s constant and systemic disruptions, capitalism requires growth to attempt “dynamic stabilization”, to buy off/compromise with enough of the population to preserve social consent (ex. post-WWII’s welfare state/mass consumerism, reliant on fossil fuel growth).
--There is so much to synthesize regarding economic growth as a mismeasure of social needs:
i) Over-values: “exchange-value”/instantaneous market exchange; pathologies of consumerism where advertising is meant to manufacture dissatisfaction and dependency for growing purchases rather than long-term fulfilment (Gone Tomorrow: The Hidden Life of Garbage); positional consumption to “keep up”…
…Intensified division-of-labour (turning humans into cogs, smashing autonomy and creativity…“you don’t hate Mondays, you hate capitalism”; alienation; over-work), etc. The wealthy rely on passive income (Owning the Future: Power and Property in an Age of Crisis), while the rest are over-exploited (The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions) and/or over-alienated (Bullshit Jobs: A Theory).
ii) Under-values: “use-value”/long-term socioecological needs, well-being/Quality of Life, non-monetary relationships (esp. social reproduction/ecology), leisure time (required to build long-term socioecological relationships), equality/accessibility (vs. market’s one-dollar-one-vote), participatory democracy, etc.
-Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist
3) Cultural:
--The book traces the rise of capitalist liberalism:
i) Ideologically separating “the economy” as a separate sphere with its own laws
ii) Post-WWII’s “Modernization” theory of economic development, to counter Soviet socialism and Third World decolonization (The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World).
--This overlaps with worker alienation, consumerism, etc.
4) Feminist:
--Referring to Eco-feminism and Feminist Economics, the focus here is on capitalism’s devaluation of reproductive labour, with the alternative of a care economy.
5) Anti-industrialist:
--As noted earlier, the book does contrast degrowth vs. “anti-modernism”, describing the latter as vulgar anti-technology/anti-civilization.
--Thus, degrowth’s anti-industrialist critique centers around capitalism’s undemocratic technologies disciplining workers into cogs; the alternative is participatory democracy. The machine-breaking Luddites were actually protesting for workers autonomy rather than completely rejecting technology/civilization.
6) South-North:
--The book refers to Post Development (challenging Modernization theory), Latin America’s Post-Extractivism, and Marxian Dependency theory. For more critiques of imperialism, see:
-Hickel’s The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions
-A People’s Green New Deal
-The Red Deal: Indigenous Action to Save Our Earth
…For the rest of the review, see comments below (“The Bad/Missing”)…
Preamble:
--Of the 3 intros to degrowth I’ve read, I would rank as follows:
i) Hickel’s Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World: foundational.
ii) This book: useful survey on "why?", but missing "how?".
iii) Saito’s Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto: niche insights, also missing "how?". Since Saito uses the label “degrowth communism”, my review of Saito’s book discusses how labels can be such distractions. I’m fine with “post growth” if “degrowth” sounds negative. Let’s move on.
The Good:
--This book’s key feature is to synthesize the diverse influences of “degrowth” to raise awareness of an alternative common sense (already existing in diverse movements) to challenge the growth paradigm (which on the surface seems insurmountable).
--Using Wallerstein’s framing, we can see how far the growth paradigm stretches:
a) Pro-Capitalist (“Spirit of Davos”, home of the World Economic Forum):
--Liberal growth: including those trying to address climate change, like Bill Gates (How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need)
--Reactionary growth: for “reactionary” in general, see The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump
b) Anti-Capitalist/Socialist (“Spirit of Porto Alegre”, home of the World Social Forum):
--Left growth (productivism)
--Left degrowth: there are opposing ideologies that may also critique growth (i.e. conservative/green fascism/anti-modernism/liberal environmentalism), but the book distinguishes “degrowth” for its (Leftist) socioecological justice principles.
--Here is the toolbox assembled:
1) Ecological:
--Referring to Ecological/Biophysical Economics, the focus here is society’s material/energy throughput (vs. sources) and waste (vs. sinks).
--This tradition has a strong critique of mainstream (“Neoclassical”) Economics, which conceptualizes “the economy” as a circulation of inputs (labour/capital/money/goods), where growth stems from knowledge/technology/capital. Crucially, Neoclassical Economics assumes circular reproduction of its inputs while dismissing the environment (raw materials/energy/land) and reproductive labour (mostly unwaged). See Keen’s The New Economics: A Manifesto
--The critique uses systems science (Thinking in Systems: A Primer) to consider the flows (energy/materials extracted, used and wasted; also monetary flows) and stocks (sources and sinks; also biomass/infrastructure/artifacts), revealing society’s expanding social metabolism of material/energy, including the “Great Acceleration” since WWII:
-Facing the Anthropocene: Fossil Capitalism and the Crisis of the Earth System
-Earth System Science: A Very Short Introduction
--The material analysis is clear: growth is now unsustainable (overshooting our planetary boundaries); degrowth is inevitable, so we must choose “degrowth by design” to avoid “degrowth by disaster”. Further analysis reveal “green growth” resulting in energy addition rather than energy transition (to sustainability), where empirical material flow analysis reveals the hope of “decoupling” economic growth from material/energy use as insufficient (relative efficiency gains are swamped by absolute increases), etc.
2) Socioeconomic/Anti-Capitalist:
--I combined “socioeconomic” with “anti-capitalist” as I don’t see a proper distinction made in the book.
--Referring to Wallerstein’s conception of the “modern world system” (capitalism), the roots are traced to the 16th century European arms race (“war capitalism”), leading to colonial enterprises which developed into joint-stock companies (The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power). For a debate (I prefer a synthesis) on this with orthodox Marxism, see Wallerstein’s World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction.
--Capitalism’s endless accumulation transformed social metabolism from circular to linear. Given capitalist profit-seeking’s constant and systemic disruptions, capitalism requires growth to attempt “dynamic stabilization”, to buy off/compromise with enough of the population to preserve social consent (ex. post-WWII’s welfare state/mass consumerism, reliant on fossil fuel growth).
--There is so much to synthesize regarding economic growth as a mismeasure of social needs:
i) Over-values: “exchange-value”/instantaneous market exchange; pathologies of consumerism where advertising is meant to manufacture dissatisfaction and dependency for growing purchases rather than long-term fulfilment (Gone Tomorrow: The Hidden Life of Garbage); positional consumption to “keep up”…
…Intensified division-of-labour (turning humans into cogs, smashing autonomy and creativity…“you don’t hate Mondays, you hate capitalism”; alienation; over-work), etc. The wealthy rely on passive income (Owning the Future: Power and Property in an Age of Crisis), while the rest are over-exploited (The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions) and/or over-alienated (Bullshit Jobs: A Theory).
ii) Under-values: “use-value”/long-term socioecological needs, well-being/Quality of Life, non-monetary relationships (esp. social reproduction/ecology), leisure time (required to build long-term socioecological relationships), equality/accessibility (vs. market’s one-dollar-one-vote), participatory democracy, etc.
-Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist
3) Cultural:
--The book traces the rise of capitalist liberalism:
i) Ideologically separating “the economy” as a separate sphere with its own laws
ii) Post-WWII’s “Modernization” theory of economic development, to counter Soviet socialism and Third World decolonization (The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World).
--This overlaps with worker alienation, consumerism, etc.
4) Feminist:
--Referring to Eco-feminism and Feminist Economics, the focus here is on capitalism’s devaluation of reproductive labour, with the alternative of a care economy.
5) Anti-industrialist:
--As noted earlier, the book does contrast degrowth vs. “anti-modernism”, describing the latter as vulgar anti-technology/anti-civilization.
--Thus, degrowth’s anti-industrialist critique centers around capitalism’s undemocratic technologies disciplining workers into cogs; the alternative is participatory democracy. The machine-breaking Luddites were actually protesting for workers autonomy rather than completely rejecting technology/civilization.
6) South-North:
--The book refers to Post Development (challenging Modernization theory), Latin America’s Post-Extractivism, and Marxian Dependency theory. For more critiques of imperialism, see:
-Hickel’s The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions
-A People’s Green New Deal
-The Red Deal: Indigenous Action to Save Our Earth
…For the rest of the review, see comments below (“The Bad/Missing”)…
Read
July 21, 2025This was the book I turned to after reading Jason Hickel’s Less is More to get a more in-depth understanding of the proposals brought forward by degrowth activists. Unfortunately, rather than being a detailed run through of what degrowthers actually want to do, this book is mainly an academic analysis of what we already know about environmental destruction under capitalism, with little to no space dedicated to the practicalities of degrowth.
The 100 page literature review (chapter 3, I think) was a real slog and even made me consider putting down the book. The last three chapters do a somewhat better job at outlining what the authors advocate, even though these chapters are mainly focused on movement building, rather than how degrowth would function. In these chapters the authors describe a vision of how grassroots social movements can link up with more top-down technocratic changes to lead towards an ecologically sustainable and socially just society. Fine, but again without a discussion of practicalities it just feels like shouting into the void.
The final chapter, which discusses four areas where ecological activists and researchers should expand the degrowth paradigm (class & race, geopolitics, technology, and economic planning), is correct in asking questions which activists would need to answer to win over sceptics like me. These are basically the sort of questions which I turned to this book for answers on, but unfortunately the possible answers are only touched on momentarily and left to future books on degrowth.
Overall a much less interesting but more in-depth introduction to degrowth than Jason Hickel’s book. It will likely be useful for degrowth advocates for introducing people to concepts and literature, but isn't very convincing otherwise in my opinion.
The 100 page literature review (chapter 3, I think) was a real slog and even made me consider putting down the book. The last three chapters do a somewhat better job at outlining what the authors advocate, even though these chapters are mainly focused on movement building, rather than how degrowth would function. In these chapters the authors describe a vision of how grassroots social movements can link up with more top-down technocratic changes to lead towards an ecologically sustainable and socially just society. Fine, but again without a discussion of practicalities it just feels like shouting into the void.
The final chapter, which discusses four areas where ecological activists and researchers should expand the degrowth paradigm (class & race, geopolitics, technology, and economic planning), is correct in asking questions which activists would need to answer to win over sceptics like me. These are basically the sort of questions which I turned to this book for answers on, but unfortunately the possible answers are only touched on momentarily and left to future books on degrowth.
Overall a much less interesting but more in-depth introduction to degrowth than Jason Hickel’s book. It will likely be useful for degrowth advocates for introducing people to concepts and literature, but isn't very convincing otherwise in my opinion.
August 18, 2022
Somewhat dissapointed in the book. It does a great job in laying out the argument against perpetual capitalist growth, as well as the general positive principles and vision of degrowth. But where the book is severely lacking is laying out the exact, material, practical, concrete *How* are you going to pull this off.
Which industries to decomission, which industries to expand, what to turn into public goods, how much of consumption of the rich to reduce, what technologies are viable going forward and which need to end, and how does this all equal out. What is the final ecological footprint balance sheet after you implement these practical solutions, infrastructure shifts, and changes in modes of production. These are very very very important questions that need to be answered scientifically and concrete and the book kind of waves them off.
Worth the read but it's frustrating.
Which industries to decomission, which industries to expand, what to turn into public goods, how much of consumption of the rich to reduce, what technologies are viable going forward and which need to end, and how does this all equal out. What is the final ecological footprint balance sheet after you implement these practical solutions, infrastructure shifts, and changes in modes of production. These are very very very important questions that need to be answered scientifically and concrete and the book kind of waves them off.
Worth the read but it's frustrating.
February 8, 2023
As endorsed multiple times by the authors, this book comes as a introductory, holistic approach of the Degrowth movement. It might turn out frustrating for people looking for simple answers and a list of bills to vote for and petitions to sign, because the book serves its full purpose: to holistically and systematically comprise all the data and discussions available on a topic of extreme difficult comprehension and access to anyone outside (or sometimes even inside) academia.
This book came to me as a recommendation from my professor of an elective course called "Global Challenges", which I at first took solely for credit purposes, and now leave with a much higher and richer understanding of my own political positions and critical thinking of socioeconomic issues in the sea of uncertainty the post-pandemic dawn of capitalism brings. Easily one of the most important reads of my last three years, I would highly recommend to anyone seeking critical answers for a post-capitalistic future that prioritizes nature's health (humanity obviously being part of it) and equity.
Unlike other books and articles I either painfully finished or just had to abandon for the sake of my time and mental well being, this book offers a set of discussions and answers followed by context and criticism onto itself, promoting critical thinking on the reader's part, and thus not only making the reading experience richer, but training the reader on >real< scientific debate and discourse, away from the "simple solutions for complex global problems", typically on right-wing and neoliberal rhetoric. The last chapters - in particular chapters 5 and 6, in which we are actually presented to more concrete prospections of a post-growth future - and the way they're organized are very effective in raising questions and inciting insecurity toward everything the book has taught so far, so at the very end (chapter 7) all - or many - of these questions are very critically addressed, with an invitation for all to keep looking for answers.
What remains for me as super uncomfortable is the lack of authors from the Global South - even in a book that repeatedly endorses the importance of alliance with Global South's movements and advocates for reparation and justice towards the regions that still suffer under colonialism. Which does not mean Global South authors are simply never mentioned, but they get much (much) less space. It was striking to me to see European authors being referenced after a whole paragraphs or pages of social movements and alternatives in, for example, Latin America or Indigenous communities elsewhere. I first thought those references would be found within this book's references, such as Schmeizer's "Degrowth in Movement(s)", but I was again extremely disappointed.
As well pointed out by the authors (chapter 7), "in the degrowth spectrum, a majority of participants are white, come from privileged social contexts in the Global North, and have academic backgrounds", which is a incontestable fact and should not be used to diminish research made by years of interest and effort of European and North-American sociologists - which is also not my intention. I also understand that language barriers play a role, since in many countries of the Global South, research - specially in Social Sciences - is simply not published in English. But may that highlight the importance of a higher effort of having authors and perspective from the Global South to Degrowth discussions. Even with all the acknowledgments very well pointed out by the authors about the importance of paying more attention to Global South movements, the European tendency of creating and buying a false "Enlightenment" rhetoric, and the utmost explicit respect and solidarity for the Global South's history, culture and struggle, it is simply inconceivable to me a Degrowth discussions with such a high fascination with the decròissance movement, to the point of it occupying almost a whole chapter and being mentioned over and over again as the basis of Degrowth movement, while references from colonized countries get mostly a footnote on another book or article that another European person wrote. European and North-American academics can't just keep waiting for Global South researches, with all their very well documented history, to magically hit the English books, reach out to them and actively ask to have a voice. Degrowth won't be build, much less materialized, on the basis of the same 10 researches - and I promise there are many more researchers that could have made this book much richer - and for that, and for that ONLY, -1 star.
But overall, having this gap of diversity in mind, I would nevertheless and wholeheartedly recommend this book to everyone. I truly hope it reaches more people from the general public and working class during the course of this year and provides some pre-answers, context, and perspectives for a future beyond this culture of living for labour.
This book came to me as a recommendation from my professor of an elective course called "Global Challenges", which I at first took solely for credit purposes, and now leave with a much higher and richer understanding of my own political positions and critical thinking of socioeconomic issues in the sea of uncertainty the post-pandemic dawn of capitalism brings. Easily one of the most important reads of my last three years, I would highly recommend to anyone seeking critical answers for a post-capitalistic future that prioritizes nature's health (humanity obviously being part of it) and equity.
Unlike other books and articles I either painfully finished or just had to abandon for the sake of my time and mental well being, this book offers a set of discussions and answers followed by context and criticism onto itself, promoting critical thinking on the reader's part, and thus not only making the reading experience richer, but training the reader on >real< scientific debate and discourse, away from the "simple solutions for complex global problems", typically on right-wing and neoliberal rhetoric. The last chapters - in particular chapters 5 and 6, in which we are actually presented to more concrete prospections of a post-growth future - and the way they're organized are very effective in raising questions and inciting insecurity toward everything the book has taught so far, so at the very end (chapter 7) all - or many - of these questions are very critically addressed, with an invitation for all to keep looking for answers.
What remains for me as super uncomfortable is the lack of authors from the Global South - even in a book that repeatedly endorses the importance of alliance with Global South's movements and advocates for reparation and justice towards the regions that still suffer under colonialism. Which does not mean Global South authors are simply never mentioned, but they get much (much) less space. It was striking to me to see European authors being referenced after a whole paragraphs or pages of social movements and alternatives in, for example, Latin America or Indigenous communities elsewhere. I first thought those references would be found within this book's references, such as Schmeizer's "Degrowth in Movement(s)", but I was again extremely disappointed.
As well pointed out by the authors (chapter 7), "in the degrowth spectrum, a majority of participants are white, come from privileged social contexts in the Global North, and have academic backgrounds", which is a incontestable fact and should not be used to diminish research made by years of interest and effort of European and North-American sociologists - which is also not my intention. I also understand that language barriers play a role, since in many countries of the Global South, research - specially in Social Sciences - is simply not published in English. But may that highlight the importance of a higher effort of having authors and perspective from the Global South to Degrowth discussions. Even with all the acknowledgments very well pointed out by the authors about the importance of paying more attention to Global South movements, the European tendency of creating and buying a false "Enlightenment" rhetoric, and the utmost explicit respect and solidarity for the Global South's history, culture and struggle, it is simply inconceivable to me a Degrowth discussions with such a high fascination with the decròissance movement, to the point of it occupying almost a whole chapter and being mentioned over and over again as the basis of Degrowth movement, while references from colonized countries get mostly a footnote on another book or article that another European person wrote. European and North-American academics can't just keep waiting for Global South researches, with all their very well documented history, to magically hit the English books, reach out to them and actively ask to have a voice. Degrowth won't be build, much less materialized, on the basis of the same 10 researches - and I promise there are many more researchers that could have made this book much richer - and for that, and for that ONLY, -1 star.
But overall, having this gap of diversity in mind, I would nevertheless and wholeheartedly recommend this book to everyone. I truly hope it reaches more people from the general public and working class during the course of this year and provides some pre-answers, context, and perspectives for a future beyond this culture of living for labour.
November 22, 2022
A decent overview of the plethora of ideas that can be placed under the umbrella of degrowth this book has much of interest to the anti-capitalist reader. But its chief failure is that it cannot articulate a theory of change that explains how the movement can smash the capitalist state - the set of institutions that exist to maintain the capitalist status quo. So while there's much overlap in the book with the ideas of revolutionary Marxism, there's not enough clarity on how change must take place, and I was left feeling that the authors articulated rather a naive view of how to change the world.
October 17, 2024
This book is a good, complete overview of the degrowth literature to date, but it is not a beginner-friendly introduction. I found the text concise and readable, as it covers different elements of degrowth briefly but effectively, yet the book might be harder to digest for those not acquainted with academic ways, or those who start from scratch with these topics. Recommended to readers at least familiar with some baseline ideas, who want to have an all-encompassing glance at what degrowth means now.
**Update 2024**
Check out my published longer and more detailed review here: https://doi.org/10.1177/1360780424127...
Reach out if you don't have access!
**Update 2024**
Check out my published longer and more detailed review here: https://doi.org/10.1177/1360780424127...
Reach out if you don't have access!
May 1, 2023
Funny how the authors claim utopian creativity is necessary to strengthen our struggles, and then proceed to give the most boring and unimaginative social-democratic pitch.
August 5, 2023
This book has been on my reading list since it was published and I finally came around reading it. Before starting to write this review, I saw many others criticising the book and I’d like to reply to some of them here.
To provide some context: I’m about to finish my masters degree in ecological economics and most of my professors are to some degree advocates of degrowth. That’s why this book was a fantastic summary so to say of what I learned during the last two years, in university as well as while engaging with social and environmental justice in other spheres of life. Especially the chapter on the different growth critiques was top notch. Of course, and I cannot stress this enough, this is a 300 page summary of the main points of debates and currents in the degrowth discourse! This is not a book that goes into detail! It does not offer solutions to every problem and I understand that people criticised the policy proposals as too shallow and simplistic. It’s frustrating and annoying to be left with more questions than answers when the ecological crisis is very real and urgent. But it’s worth to be patient and maybe see this book as an introduction to learn more about ongoing debates and research. Because there is much more to degrowth than written in this book and many debates are not specifically labelled as degrowth for different reasons. For a global south perspective (or specifically African), check out Ndongo Samba Stella’s publications. Read the new Monthly Review edition on degrowth and eco-socialism. Or if you’re interested in calculation debates, read ‘Half Earth Socialism’ by Drew Pendergrass and Troy Vettese.
The questions raised in the book and by the degrowth movement in general are not easy ones, they are political and there will not only be win-win solutions. And I know that me asking for other readers to invest more time and give degrowth the benefit of the doubt when I myself have the privilege to study this full time is a bit hypocritical. But there really is a lot of interesting stuff out there. Degrowth seems to be getting clout - with this year’s Beyond Growth conference in the European Parliament and the respective populist and willingly uninformed replies by the Economist, the Financial Times, and Jacobin, reference to sufficiency in IPPC AR6, etc. etc.
So all in all, I’m very happy with the book and will recommend it to potential readers who never heard of degrowth or think they already know all about it.
To provide some context: I’m about to finish my masters degree in ecological economics and most of my professors are to some degree advocates of degrowth. That’s why this book was a fantastic summary so to say of what I learned during the last two years, in university as well as while engaging with social and environmental justice in other spheres of life. Especially the chapter on the different growth critiques was top notch. Of course, and I cannot stress this enough, this is a 300 page summary of the main points of debates and currents in the degrowth discourse! This is not a book that goes into detail! It does not offer solutions to every problem and I understand that people criticised the policy proposals as too shallow and simplistic. It’s frustrating and annoying to be left with more questions than answers when the ecological crisis is very real and urgent. But it’s worth to be patient and maybe see this book as an introduction to learn more about ongoing debates and research. Because there is much more to degrowth than written in this book and many debates are not specifically labelled as degrowth for different reasons. For a global south perspective (or specifically African), check out Ndongo Samba Stella’s publications. Read the new Monthly Review edition on degrowth and eco-socialism. Or if you’re interested in calculation debates, read ‘Half Earth Socialism’ by Drew Pendergrass and Troy Vettese.
The questions raised in the book and by the degrowth movement in general are not easy ones, they are political and there will not only be win-win solutions. And I know that me asking for other readers to invest more time and give degrowth the benefit of the doubt when I myself have the privilege to study this full time is a bit hypocritical. But there really is a lot of interesting stuff out there. Degrowth seems to be getting clout - with this year’s Beyond Growth conference in the European Parliament and the respective populist and willingly uninformed replies by the Economist, the Financial Times, and Jacobin, reference to sufficiency in IPPC AR6, etc. etc.
So all in all, I’m very happy with the book and will recommend it to potential readers who never heard of degrowth or think they already know all about it.
April 9, 2025
Woah. While this honestly felt like I was reading a textbook, I simply love the degrowth perspective and this book did a great job at simplifying the concept. It addressed all of the typical concerns about degrowth while proving its achievability and giving direct policy proposals. This made me want to take over the world and just improve all of our systems.
January 23, 2023
The world proposed in The Future Is Degrowth sure is a great start: environmental sustainability, universal basic income, no oppression, zero inequality. However, this Degrowthist future overlooks an additional problem with the capitalist-extractivist-colonial status quo: sexual scarcity. Historically, female sexual availability has always been limited. This obliges men to compete for sexual resources by engaging in various problematic behaviours, such as working in investment banking and killing the planet through economic growth. I therefore propose a new and improved degrowth ideology. Degrowth++ will preserve all the features of Degrowth, but in addition, harems of gorgeous and eternally youthful maidens will be provided to all men, free of charge. Once this mechanism is in place, there will be no need for men to compete at money-making contests. Consequently, the capitalist devastation of the environment will subside, and peace will reign on Earth.
No but seriously: avoid this book! It proposes a vague utopia whose realization the authors themselves don't believe in. The book's last paragraph reveals this gem:
Indeed.
An infurating vagueness and lack of grounding in reality (a successful transformation will need to meet us where we're at) are not this book's only sins. The writing somehow manages to be simultaneously naive and pompous, as if perpetrated by some friendless 14-year-old who spent his summer reading 19th century tracts.
If I were the enlightened dictator of a globally just society, I would condemn these authors to a gluttonous and ironic death by force-feeding of steaks made from cattle raised on pastures illegally reclaimed from Brazilian rain forest and fertilized with the bones of murdered indigenous land defenders. That would be an appropriate punishment for having wasted my time with their fatuous drivel.
No but seriously: avoid this book! It proposes a vague utopia whose realization the authors themselves don't believe in. The book's last paragraph reveals this gem:
We do not think degrowth itself will develop into *the* social movement bringing about the urgently needed social-ecological transformations.
Indeed.
An infurating vagueness and lack of grounding in reality (a successful transformation will need to meet us where we're at) are not this book's only sins. The writing somehow manages to be simultaneously naive and pompous, as if perpetrated by some friendless 14-year-old who spent his summer reading 19th century tracts.
If I were the enlightened dictator of a globally just society, I would condemn these authors to a gluttonous and ironic death by force-feeding of steaks made from cattle raised on pastures illegally reclaimed from Brazilian rain forest and fertilized with the bones of murdered indigenous land defenders. That would be an appropriate punishment for having wasted my time with their fatuous drivel.
September 29, 2022
Apparently Economic Sciences are easy: kiss some behinds in Humanities, be spineless enough to get some nice diplomas, and voila! The State will give you money for free, and if you are competent in other fields than the ones in which you have specialized you get to hire servants, and call them assistants, also paid by the State.
August 19, 2022
A mess of warn and fuzzy buzzwords. Yawn.
Read
August 26, 2022This book undoubtedly deals with important issues and raises many interesting points, but frankly its stilted style makes it a chore to read. It reads very much like the translation it is.
Want to read
December 29, 2023Is pirating this book also degrowth?
April 14, 2025
Brief points:
1. This is, for now, the most detailed version of degrowth, with properly written critique of growth and its elements, false hopes given from capitalism, quite proper vision of proposed societal structure and path to it.
2. Utopian visions are needed the most right now. That's why I can't understand degrowthers' bashing the only other on utopian vision, now sadly half-dead - left accelerationism. Degrowthers are apparetly really technophobic and equate technological development with economic growth in capitalistic society. This is exactly the worry of l/accs - that nowadays technology is understood only as capitalistic, but it wasn't always like that (think of Cybersyn project form Chile or great utopian technovisions from Soviet Union developed by real socialists, not state capitalism enjoyers). This is why we need to think of technology against capital, get it back from capitalists and capitalistic mindests and give it to the people for their goodness - end with bullshit technology restricted by profit motivation, go with technology that gives us real ease in living. This is particularly interesting, because in some cases degrowthers speak accelerationistic, but since they think that left accelerationism is just for any techno-progress they don't realize it. But somethines their technophobia is disguised as critique of 'industrialism', understood mostly just as developing new technology. Technology isn't neutral indeed - that's why it need to be made left. Technology doesn't have to be driver for alienation and growth, because it isn't bad by itself - it is (mostly and sometimes) bad by capital's design. Time to change it. For an utopian vision, in comparison with l/acc, degrowth sometimes lacks utopian imaginery.
3. It is still, to much extend, very localist vision. Local won't save us, because our problem(s) is/are global in the late (or just global, which is the same) capitalism.
4. Is degrowth undialectical? It seems sometimes, because it tries to undermine that from capitalism something else will emerge - either postcapitalism or communism. First, it is logically weak, because anything next will be directly from capitalism. Secondly, history and dialectical materialism gives us quite good evidence for their stance - from slavery to feudalism, from feudalism to capitalism - isn't it true? Still, may be interesting dispute.
5. It is an utopia with mandatory work. One of the antinomies that I don't agree with, because, after Lafargue, I want to have a right to be lazy, secondly, after Marx, I want to do whatever I want. This is bigger debate about alienation and it's good, but it is not my vision for utopia.
6. "How?" section is suprisingly good, because it even got notion of counter-hegenomy (taken from l/acc?). Nothing like big bad revolution naturally... It is certainly not satisfying, but it is the best I've read for a while (big success)
Overall, might be the best and the most consistent and cohesive degrowth vision out there.
1. This is, for now, the most detailed version of degrowth, with properly written critique of growth and its elements, false hopes given from capitalism, quite proper vision of proposed societal structure and path to it.
2. Utopian visions are needed the most right now. That's why I can't understand degrowthers' bashing the only other on utopian vision, now sadly half-dead - left accelerationism. Degrowthers are apparetly really technophobic and equate technological development with economic growth in capitalistic society. This is exactly the worry of l/accs - that nowadays technology is understood only as capitalistic, but it wasn't always like that (think of Cybersyn project form Chile or great utopian technovisions from Soviet Union developed by real socialists, not state capitalism enjoyers). This is why we need to think of technology against capital, get it back from capitalists and capitalistic mindests and give it to the people for their goodness - end with bullshit technology restricted by profit motivation, go with technology that gives us real ease in living. This is particularly interesting, because in some cases degrowthers speak accelerationistic, but since they think that left accelerationism is just for any techno-progress they don't realize it. But somethines their technophobia is disguised as critique of 'industrialism', understood mostly just as developing new technology. Technology isn't neutral indeed - that's why it need to be made left. Technology doesn't have to be driver for alienation and growth, because it isn't bad by itself - it is (mostly and sometimes) bad by capital's design. Time to change it. For an utopian vision, in comparison with l/acc, degrowth sometimes lacks utopian imaginery.
3. It is still, to much extend, very localist vision. Local won't save us, because our problem(s) is/are global in the late (or just global, which is the same) capitalism.
4. Is degrowth undialectical? It seems sometimes, because it tries to undermine that from capitalism something else will emerge - either postcapitalism or communism. First, it is logically weak, because anything next will be directly from capitalism. Secondly, history and dialectical materialism gives us quite good evidence for their stance - from slavery to feudalism, from feudalism to capitalism - isn't it true? Still, may be interesting dispute.
5. It is an utopia with mandatory work. One of the antinomies that I don't agree with, because, after Lafargue, I want to have a right to be lazy, secondly, after Marx, I want to do whatever I want. This is bigger debate about alienation and it's good, but it is not my vision for utopia.
6. "How?" section is suprisingly good, because it even got notion of counter-hegenomy (taken from l/acc?). Nothing like big bad revolution naturally... It is certainly not satisfying, but it is the best I've read for a while (big success)
Overall, might be the best and the most consistent and cohesive degrowth vision out there.
May 24, 2023
This book fairly convincingly argues that capitalism’s current trajectory is both harmful and unsustainable, in particular its obsession with economic growth at the cost of all else. But then this isn’t a particularly hard point to argue for, nor is it particularly novel.
Where this book stands to set itself apart then is with its proposed alternative based around a degrowth philosophy and on this front the book disappoints. It spends some time discussing what degrowth is and isn’t before tackling the two most important issues: the viability and achievability of this sort of political reform.
The problem here is that in the former case, much of what is described does not sound viable at all like anarchist communes, the abolishment of markets and currency etc etc. It should be stressed that I don’t believe the authors are advocating for the adoption of everything mentioned in that chapter, but I feel when you take the sane core of ideas mentioned you’ve got something resembling a fairly generic leftist vision of society.
With respect to the achievability, this is so thoroughly unconvincing that it might actually instill despair in the reader. Three broad strategies are mentioned:
1) The continued creation of Nowtopias which are degrowth aligned communes whose descriptions in practice, ironically, most closely resembles the human settlements you read about or see in post apocalyptic fiction.
2) Top down legislation to bring about necessary reform, where in as far as the proposals are politically feasible they are already incorporated into more traditional green thinking.
3) Movement building, so that the next time the earth faces an unprecedented crisis (think Coronavirus) this movement is ready to seize the opportunity and somehow push through some reforms. I expect the next such crisis will be due to mass unemployment brought upon by AI, but I think this will happen far to soon for such a degrowth movement to be ready by then.
The main problem in the above is why we would expect any large number of people to selflessly buy into a movement that entails an appreciable drop in standard of living. They emphasize that this process must be democratic but it’s simply beyond imaging that in any reasonable time frame they could convince more than 50% of some relevant population group. Maybe after some sort of ecological collapse but at that point degrowth is likely already forced onto our species.
Respect where it’s due, the authors acknowledge on the last page that they do not believe degrowth will be THE movement to bring about the necessary social change, but that it nevertheless offers some important ideas that may be adopted by the movement that does. Fair enough though I can’t help but feel that by in large, as far as the ideas mentioned within are original they’re insane and where they’re sane they’re unoriginal.
Where this book stands to set itself apart then is with its proposed alternative based around a degrowth philosophy and on this front the book disappoints. It spends some time discussing what degrowth is and isn’t before tackling the two most important issues: the viability and achievability of this sort of political reform.
The problem here is that in the former case, much of what is described does not sound viable at all like anarchist communes, the abolishment of markets and currency etc etc. It should be stressed that I don’t believe the authors are advocating for the adoption of everything mentioned in that chapter, but I feel when you take the sane core of ideas mentioned you’ve got something resembling a fairly generic leftist vision of society.
With respect to the achievability, this is so thoroughly unconvincing that it might actually instill despair in the reader. Three broad strategies are mentioned:
1) The continued creation of Nowtopias which are degrowth aligned communes whose descriptions in practice, ironically, most closely resembles the human settlements you read about or see in post apocalyptic fiction.
2) Top down legislation to bring about necessary reform, where in as far as the proposals are politically feasible they are already incorporated into more traditional green thinking.
3) Movement building, so that the next time the earth faces an unprecedented crisis (think Coronavirus) this movement is ready to seize the opportunity and somehow push through some reforms. I expect the next such crisis will be due to mass unemployment brought upon by AI, but I think this will happen far to soon for such a degrowth movement to be ready by then.
The main problem in the above is why we would expect any large number of people to selflessly buy into a movement that entails an appreciable drop in standard of living. They emphasize that this process must be democratic but it’s simply beyond imaging that in any reasonable time frame they could convince more than 50% of some relevant population group. Maybe after some sort of ecological collapse but at that point degrowth is likely already forced onto our species.
Respect where it’s due, the authors acknowledge on the last page that they do not believe degrowth will be THE movement to bring about the necessary social change, but that it nevertheless offers some important ideas that may be adopted by the movement that does. Fair enough though I can’t help but feel that by in large, as far as the ideas mentioned within are original they’re insane and where they’re sane they’re unoriginal.
February 18, 2025
I cannot in good praxis give this book the score it deserves. Maybe THE issue that i care about most was an absolute slog of a read. Written in a way to convince the fraction of people who are already in agreement with most of its arguments/presuppositions who just needed the positivist and gentle language to feel better about it.
December 6, 2024
A little hand-wavey at times, but I think it just comes with the terrain, and I'm here for it. I also am sort of intrigued by how many times the word 'metabolism' is used. In the little genealogy of 'degrowth' the book provides, the authors claim:
“the reference to degrowth as ‘convivial’ (a French term, based on Latin con vivere, to live together) emphasized that it referred to a positive vision of the good life defined by cooperative social interrelations with each other and with nature, a vision insisting that another world is indeed possible.20In this new use of the term, ‘degrowth’ was both a provocation and a political proposal meant to challenge mainstream economic assumptions of development and to lay out a path for the future. Initially, it combined two intellectual strands: first, a socio-metabolic and thermodynamic analysis of capitalist growth, which highlighted the need for the countries of the Global North to exit the irrational and unsustainable growth race and subvert the related hegemony of the ‘growth paradigm’ that claimed GDP growth was good, imperative, and limitless”
When I see STS critiques of Marxist engagements of metabolism they are mainly talking about this type of input-output analysis that characterizes social metabolism as a niche field of study. You sort of get an early definition of social metabolism in the fifth transformational change the authors list out of six:
“(5) democratization of social metabolism, meaning that large areas of production and consumption will need to be dismantled, while other systems will need to be developed in their place – this could include, for example, reforming taxation systems to disincentivize harmful industrial activity, or moratoria on planned fossil fuel infrastructure such as airports or mega-highways;”
In that sense social metabolism basically alludes to the means of production along with the sites of large-scale consumption (including the transportation infrastructure that mediates the movement of material and energy between both sites of production and consumption), which raises the question of why use the term metabolism? And I think I understand why it's the chosen rhetoric of degrowth theorists. The point is that material and energy inputs are finite, and there is an underlying constraint that exists in the realities we inhabit, and I think that's quite obvious. To me the point of social metabolism as an analytic is to gesture both to the movement and transformation of material and energy, from the site of ingestion, to the various stages of digestion, transformation, reconfiguration, on to the sites of excretion and disposal of waste, which are then quite literally metabolized by other organisms. The point is that through capitalist production the material of the commons in nature becomes metabolized into the body of empire, and repurposed for its own logics and ends. That to me is the point of the metaphor which is not always made clear in the term's deployment. Though it's actually very very clear in the writings of Marx, even when he's not directly using the term metabolism, you get the sense when uses the language of organs or bodies throughout Capital, such as this one:
"An organised system of machines, to which motion is communicated by the transmitting mechanism from a central automaton, is the most developed form of production by machinery. Here we have, in the place of the isolated machine, a mechanical monster whose body fills whole factories, and whose demon power, at first veiled under the slow and measured motions of his giant limbs, at length breaks out into the fast and furious whirl of his countless working organs."
And it is in this way that 'metabolism' becomes a central analytic for degrowth theorists who talk about 'growth' through this extended metaphor of a growing socio-economic body:
“In this section, we discuss growth as a material, biophysical process: the accelerating movement and use of more and more resources, energy, land, consumable goods like food or smart-phones, and the resulting waste products and emissions – all of which are considered part of the ‘social metabolism’ of society.”
And it is through flows (a concept so key and central to metabolism) that degrowth theorists understand and quantify 'growth':
“Centrally, growth can be analysed as the flows of energy and matter that are passing through societies – extracted in some useful form, put to work or consumed, and eventually emitted as waste. In this metabolic process, these flows are not only sustaining human and non-human bodies, but also the infrastructures and material artefacts that humans have built, which require energy and materials to be sustained and are analysed as ‘stocks’. From this ecological and materialist perspective, economic growth necessarily requires increasing throughput of energy and matter – a fact that tends to be disguised by the focus on GDP or ‘the economy’ in terms of monetary flows. As will be discussed in more detail throughout the book, while efforts to dematerialize the economy through increased efficiency and the use of renewable energy and resources might change the equation somewhat, they cannot escape the necessary materiality of economic growth. The social metabolism of capitalism relies mainly on non-circular flows of energy and materials that constantly run through ‘the economy’ and build up as rising stocks or are released as waste."
Regarding this last point, I know a grad student who is working on the history of chemistry and shows that 19th century chemists (like Playfair and P.L. Simmonds) were actually obsessed with created closed-loop systems which are so fetishized in sustainability discourse today. In fact capitalists love turning cheap waste byproducts into valuable commodities they can sell for a profit. These truly circular systems do not exist not because no one had the imagination to think them up, or even because they were not tried. Each waste byproduct requires new market demand to be generated, the fostering of new desires, new uses and applications and ever multiplicating forms of externalities that grow out of them.
The book eventually does get into a more rigorous definition and contextualization of social metabolism, but mainly as a setup for defining Foster's notion of metabolic rift:
"“It was from this understanding – the scientific investigation into the physical basis of economies – that political economists started to develop an understanding of what is called ‘social metabolism’. This is a key term in the degrowth literature and fundamental for an accurate understanding of the material conditions of growth. In physiology and biology, metabolism is understood as a system that exchanges and balances nutrients of an organism. A human organism, for example, takes in food, processes it to create energy, uses parts of it to continuously rebuild the body, and excretes the rest. The concept of metabolism began to be applied to wider ecological and social systems in the nineteenth century with the development of the science of ecology. Scientists began to use the term ‘metabolism’ (in German, Stoffwechsel) to apply to biochemical processes in natural systems, not just in organisms. Karl Marx, interested in the development of these new natural sciences, started to explore what he called social metabolism: the material and energetic exchange that allows a society to reproduce itself, produce, stabilize, and grow.12 Marx, who coined the term ‘social metabolism’, described it as the dynamic relationship between humans and nature. This interchange was dependent on complex and ecologically specific dynamics, such as the nutrient capacity of the soil or the availability of various forms of energy. Since societies depend on biological and ecological functions, these limit the potential of economic activities. This suggests that capitalist development, which relies on infinite accumulation, has yet another tendency towards crisis.
Marx, in his investigations of capitalism, also became concerned with the way in which a capitalist economy’s social metabolic processes systematically disrupt natural metabolic processes – such as by producing waste (sewage, pollution, plastics) that can’t be absorbed by ecosystems but rather that degrades them. As Marx pointed out,[Capitalist production] disturbs the metabolic interaction between man and the earth, i.e., it prevents the return to the soil of its constituent elements consumed by man in the form of food and clothing; hence it hinders the operation of the eternal natural condition for the lasting fertility of the soil.14John Bellamy Foster, in his study of Karl Marx’s ecological politics, has called this dynamic the ‘metabolic rift’.15 Thus, Marx’s work and a revival of eco-Marxism highlight the importance of understanding the material and ecological basis of any social system, and the way by which social metabolism fosters or disrupts natural cycles and metabolic exchanges, contributing to the dynamics of capitalist crisis (see also section 3.4).”
The authors then explain why social metabolism offers the empirical basis for Marxist economic analysis:
"“Following the development of ecological economics, scientists began to trace the social metabolism of different economies by measuring aggregate material and energetic ‘throughput’ – basically, the total ‘stuff’ that economies consume. Different economic systems, historically, have had vastly different rates and forms of metabolism.16 The measurement of social metabolism has become a key basis for the empirical evidence underlying whether economic growth can be decoupled from material and energy throughput. Indeed, with the advent of tools to empirically measure metabolic impacts such as carbon and water footprints, scientists have also come closer to understanding how the aggregate throughput of a society is linked to environmental impact.17The study of social metabolism is important for our understanding of the material basis of the economy for several reasons. First, it highlights once again how nature and society are not separate objects but are connected through biological, chemical, and physical interchanges. It thus underlines how social dynamics can adversely affect ecological systems, and how this depends on complex interlocking systems, each of which has its own unique traits. For example, the social metabolism of speeding up the water cycle through erosion-prone agriculture has very different impacts on society than speeding up the carbon cycle through burning fossil fuels – since water and carbon each have different properties and effects (on the air, on the soil, in the ocean, and so on). Second, the theoretical perspective that focuses on ‘social metabolism’ and the empirical measurement of it bring to light a part of the economy that is veiled by most economic measurement tools like GDP. Third, measuring the aggregate social metabolism of a society becomes a political object in itself, as it has the potential to empirically assess the relationship between economic growth, material and energetic throughput, and ecological devastation – as well as to challenge unequal distributions of the negative effects of interlinked processes (see section 3.7). In summary, an understanding of social metabolism is necessary for comprehending the material form that any economy takes and determining whether it is sustainable or not.”
Labour is then the metabolic interaction with nature that is exploited by the capitalist for profit:
"“ Value is created through the metabolic interaction with nature in the form of work, and then exploited by the property-owning classes who can extract surplus value by selling the finished commodity... This means that the amount of money (M) initially used is converted into a larger amount of money (M’) through a metabolic exchange with nature and commodified work (that is, wage labour) that produces commodities (C).”
Hence how we get next the famous passage from Chapter 15 of Capital Vol 1 about how capitalist production destroys the conditions or circumstances around or that make possible that metabolism, by robbing both the worker and the soil.
The authors also discuss recent scholarly approaches such as 'urban mertabolism' and the 'tread-mill of production' which I have seen deployed in a few contexts. There are then discussions both how to reduce and make smaller 'our' social metabolism, change 'our' social metabolism, democratize 'our' social metabolism and so on. I think a very valid critique that I've seen levelled at Marxist metabolic theory by STS scholars like Landecker, is that they have latched onto Marx's engagements with 19th century metabolic sciences and have remained stuck in the theoretical categories of a theory that is nearly 200 years old. Marx read and engaged with the chemistry of his time, and if Marxists today are to be sufficiently materialist, they should also be understanding contemporary conceptions of the material and the scale of the chemical and the molecule and be theorizing from there rather than old scientific theories from the time of Marx. I think it is precisely in the last few questions regarding, reducing, changing, and democratizing metabolism that the provocation is worth taking up.
This book did offer some engagement with practical issues, but its main contribution I think was theoretical and in the spectrum that lies between interpreting the world and changing the world, it is certainly closer to the former. And that is not a bad thing. Marx's Capital also was about how we can understand and interpret capitalism. I think a more rigorous engagement with contemporary metabolism will really open up ways not only to better interpret the world but new possibilities and strategies to actually making tangible changes to this world, and make it new. The German term that Marx was using that is translated as 'metabolism' was Stoffwechsel, literally meaning stuff changing. And we need stuff to change, but in a different way than we've been having it transformed before. Transformations are always happening, but the change needs to be a second or third order change. We must change the way we transform matter and energy, and the relations that mediate those transformations, and more rigorous and expansive engagement with metabolism (as not only a socio-economic analytic, but as an actual life science of energy) is one of the ways to do just that.
“the reference to degrowth as ‘convivial’ (a French term, based on Latin con vivere, to live together) emphasized that it referred to a positive vision of the good life defined by cooperative social interrelations with each other and with nature, a vision insisting that another world is indeed possible.20In this new use of the term, ‘degrowth’ was both a provocation and a political proposal meant to challenge mainstream economic assumptions of development and to lay out a path for the future. Initially, it combined two intellectual strands: first, a socio-metabolic and thermodynamic analysis of capitalist growth, which highlighted the need for the countries of the Global North to exit the irrational and unsustainable growth race and subvert the related hegemony of the ‘growth paradigm’ that claimed GDP growth was good, imperative, and limitless”
When I see STS critiques of Marxist engagements of metabolism they are mainly talking about this type of input-output analysis that characterizes social metabolism as a niche field of study. You sort of get an early definition of social metabolism in the fifth transformational change the authors list out of six:
“(5) democratization of social metabolism, meaning that large areas of production and consumption will need to be dismantled, while other systems will need to be developed in their place – this could include, for example, reforming taxation systems to disincentivize harmful industrial activity, or moratoria on planned fossil fuel infrastructure such as airports or mega-highways;”
In that sense social metabolism basically alludes to the means of production along with the sites of large-scale consumption (including the transportation infrastructure that mediates the movement of material and energy between both sites of production and consumption), which raises the question of why use the term metabolism? And I think I understand why it's the chosen rhetoric of degrowth theorists. The point is that material and energy inputs are finite, and there is an underlying constraint that exists in the realities we inhabit, and I think that's quite obvious. To me the point of social metabolism as an analytic is to gesture both to the movement and transformation of material and energy, from the site of ingestion, to the various stages of digestion, transformation, reconfiguration, on to the sites of excretion and disposal of waste, which are then quite literally metabolized by other organisms. The point is that through capitalist production the material of the commons in nature becomes metabolized into the body of empire, and repurposed for its own logics and ends. That to me is the point of the metaphor which is not always made clear in the term's deployment. Though it's actually very very clear in the writings of Marx, even when he's not directly using the term metabolism, you get the sense when uses the language of organs or bodies throughout Capital, such as this one:
"An organised system of machines, to which motion is communicated by the transmitting mechanism from a central automaton, is the most developed form of production by machinery. Here we have, in the place of the isolated machine, a mechanical monster whose body fills whole factories, and whose demon power, at first veiled under the slow and measured motions of his giant limbs, at length breaks out into the fast and furious whirl of his countless working organs."
And it is in this way that 'metabolism' becomes a central analytic for degrowth theorists who talk about 'growth' through this extended metaphor of a growing socio-economic body:
“In this section, we discuss growth as a material, biophysical process: the accelerating movement and use of more and more resources, energy, land, consumable goods like food or smart-phones, and the resulting waste products and emissions – all of which are considered part of the ‘social metabolism’ of society.”
And it is through flows (a concept so key and central to metabolism) that degrowth theorists understand and quantify 'growth':
“Centrally, growth can be analysed as the flows of energy and matter that are passing through societies – extracted in some useful form, put to work or consumed, and eventually emitted as waste. In this metabolic process, these flows are not only sustaining human and non-human bodies, but also the infrastructures and material artefacts that humans have built, which require energy and materials to be sustained and are analysed as ‘stocks’. From this ecological and materialist perspective, economic growth necessarily requires increasing throughput of energy and matter – a fact that tends to be disguised by the focus on GDP or ‘the economy’ in terms of monetary flows. As will be discussed in more detail throughout the book, while efforts to dematerialize the economy through increased efficiency and the use of renewable energy and resources might change the equation somewhat, they cannot escape the necessary materiality of economic growth. The social metabolism of capitalism relies mainly on non-circular flows of energy and materials that constantly run through ‘the economy’ and build up as rising stocks or are released as waste."
Regarding this last point, I know a grad student who is working on the history of chemistry and shows that 19th century chemists (like Playfair and P.L. Simmonds) were actually obsessed with created closed-loop systems which are so fetishized in sustainability discourse today. In fact capitalists love turning cheap waste byproducts into valuable commodities they can sell for a profit. These truly circular systems do not exist not because no one had the imagination to think them up, or even because they were not tried. Each waste byproduct requires new market demand to be generated, the fostering of new desires, new uses and applications and ever multiplicating forms of externalities that grow out of them.
The book eventually does get into a more rigorous definition and contextualization of social metabolism, but mainly as a setup for defining Foster's notion of metabolic rift:
"“It was from this understanding – the scientific investigation into the physical basis of economies – that political economists started to develop an understanding of what is called ‘social metabolism’. This is a key term in the degrowth literature and fundamental for an accurate understanding of the material conditions of growth. In physiology and biology, metabolism is understood as a system that exchanges and balances nutrients of an organism. A human organism, for example, takes in food, processes it to create energy, uses parts of it to continuously rebuild the body, and excretes the rest. The concept of metabolism began to be applied to wider ecological and social systems in the nineteenth century with the development of the science of ecology. Scientists began to use the term ‘metabolism’ (in German, Stoffwechsel) to apply to biochemical processes in natural systems, not just in organisms. Karl Marx, interested in the development of these new natural sciences, started to explore what he called social metabolism: the material and energetic exchange that allows a society to reproduce itself, produce, stabilize, and grow.12 Marx, who coined the term ‘social metabolism’, described it as the dynamic relationship between humans and nature. This interchange was dependent on complex and ecologically specific dynamics, such as the nutrient capacity of the soil or the availability of various forms of energy. Since societies depend on biological and ecological functions, these limit the potential of economic activities. This suggests that capitalist development, which relies on infinite accumulation, has yet another tendency towards crisis.
Marx, in his investigations of capitalism, also became concerned with the way in which a capitalist economy’s social metabolic processes systematically disrupt natural metabolic processes – such as by producing waste (sewage, pollution, plastics) that can’t be absorbed by ecosystems but rather that degrades them. As Marx pointed out,[Capitalist production] disturbs the metabolic interaction between man and the earth, i.e., it prevents the return to the soil of its constituent elements consumed by man in the form of food and clothing; hence it hinders the operation of the eternal natural condition for the lasting fertility of the soil.14John Bellamy Foster, in his study of Karl Marx’s ecological politics, has called this dynamic the ‘metabolic rift’.15 Thus, Marx’s work and a revival of eco-Marxism highlight the importance of understanding the material and ecological basis of any social system, and the way by which social metabolism fosters or disrupts natural cycles and metabolic exchanges, contributing to the dynamics of capitalist crisis (see also section 3.4).”
The authors then explain why social metabolism offers the empirical basis for Marxist economic analysis:
"“Following the development of ecological economics, scientists began to trace the social metabolism of different economies by measuring aggregate material and energetic ‘throughput’ – basically, the total ‘stuff’ that economies consume. Different economic systems, historically, have had vastly different rates and forms of metabolism.16 The measurement of social metabolism has become a key basis for the empirical evidence underlying whether economic growth can be decoupled from material and energy throughput. Indeed, with the advent of tools to empirically measure metabolic impacts such as carbon and water footprints, scientists have also come closer to understanding how the aggregate throughput of a society is linked to environmental impact.17The study of social metabolism is important for our understanding of the material basis of the economy for several reasons. First, it highlights once again how nature and society are not separate objects but are connected through biological, chemical, and physical interchanges. It thus underlines how social dynamics can adversely affect ecological systems, and how this depends on complex interlocking systems, each of which has its own unique traits. For example, the social metabolism of speeding up the water cycle through erosion-prone agriculture has very different impacts on society than speeding up the carbon cycle through burning fossil fuels – since water and carbon each have different properties and effects (on the air, on the soil, in the ocean, and so on). Second, the theoretical perspective that focuses on ‘social metabolism’ and the empirical measurement of it bring to light a part of the economy that is veiled by most economic measurement tools like GDP. Third, measuring the aggregate social metabolism of a society becomes a political object in itself, as it has the potential to empirically assess the relationship between economic growth, material and energetic throughput, and ecological devastation – as well as to challenge unequal distributions of the negative effects of interlinked processes (see section 3.7). In summary, an understanding of social metabolism is necessary for comprehending the material form that any economy takes and determining whether it is sustainable or not.”
Labour is then the metabolic interaction with nature that is exploited by the capitalist for profit:
"“ Value is created through the metabolic interaction with nature in the form of work, and then exploited by the property-owning classes who can extract surplus value by selling the finished commodity... This means that the amount of money (M) initially used is converted into a larger amount of money (M’) through a metabolic exchange with nature and commodified work (that is, wage labour) that produces commodities (C).”
Hence how we get next the famous passage from Chapter 15 of Capital Vol 1 about how capitalist production destroys the conditions or circumstances around or that make possible that metabolism, by robbing both the worker and the soil.
The authors also discuss recent scholarly approaches such as 'urban mertabolism' and the 'tread-mill of production' which I have seen deployed in a few contexts. There are then discussions both how to reduce and make smaller 'our' social metabolism, change 'our' social metabolism, democratize 'our' social metabolism and so on. I think a very valid critique that I've seen levelled at Marxist metabolic theory by STS scholars like Landecker, is that they have latched onto Marx's engagements with 19th century metabolic sciences and have remained stuck in the theoretical categories of a theory that is nearly 200 years old. Marx read and engaged with the chemistry of his time, and if Marxists today are to be sufficiently materialist, they should also be understanding contemporary conceptions of the material and the scale of the chemical and the molecule and be theorizing from there rather than old scientific theories from the time of Marx. I think it is precisely in the last few questions regarding, reducing, changing, and democratizing metabolism that the provocation is worth taking up.
This book did offer some engagement with practical issues, but its main contribution I think was theoretical and in the spectrum that lies between interpreting the world and changing the world, it is certainly closer to the former. And that is not a bad thing. Marx's Capital also was about how we can understand and interpret capitalism. I think a more rigorous engagement with contemporary metabolism will really open up ways not only to better interpret the world but new possibilities and strategies to actually making tangible changes to this world, and make it new. The German term that Marx was using that is translated as 'metabolism' was Stoffwechsel, literally meaning stuff changing. And we need stuff to change, but in a different way than we've been having it transformed before. Transformations are always happening, but the change needs to be a second or third order change. We must change the way we transform matter and energy, and the relations that mediate those transformations, and more rigorous and expansive engagement with metabolism (as not only a socio-economic analytic, but as an actual life science of energy) is one of the ways to do just that.
November 25, 2023
With holidays and so much going on I think I just wasn’t in the right head space for this book at this time. I think the message is both important and needed, and I do agree that degrowth is a must!
July 3, 2024
This book had a lot of potential but spent wayyyy too much time talking about 'the problem' of growth as opposed to 'the solution' of degrowth. The authors should probably assume that most people picking up their book are broadly convinced of the problem and have bought the book to read more about degrowth.
Unfortunately, degrowth itself isn't particularly well-explored in the book in practical terms (although the philosophy behind it is).
With the emergency-nature of finding viable alternatives and putting them into practice, a written 'guide' to degrowth should do just that- guide people into bringing about a degrowth society before it's too late.
I have diminishing patience for needless literature reviews in practical texts that should be usable for activists.
More practical guides that are readable for laypersons!
Unfortunately, degrowth itself isn't particularly well-explored in the book in practical terms (although the philosophy behind it is).
With the emergency-nature of finding viable alternatives and putting them into practice, a written 'guide' to degrowth should do just that- guide people into bringing about a degrowth society before it's too late.
I have diminishing patience for needless literature reviews in practical texts that should be usable for activists.
More practical guides that are readable for laypersons!
May 6, 2024
I’ll come back later to be more thorough, but I think I just read this late into my macro-economic thinking.
Might be good for someone just jumping in—then again, the language isn’t particularly suited for a beginner in the field…so that’s why I think it gets the 3-star
Might be good for someone just jumping in—then again, the language isn’t particularly suited for a beginner in the field…so that’s why I think it gets the 3-star
Read
September 11, 2022DNF, but did make it through enough of the book to ascertain that the proposals and coverage here all fall flat and are never either informative or convincing.
October 12, 2022
Comprehensive but thought it faltered at the end with vaguer chapters on strategy and directions for future thought/ research
March 10, 2023
In the end there are so many alternatives, but as we live in a limited physical world, all sustainable paths can be described as degrowth.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 1, 2023
If you would like to read a thoughtful, well-reasoned, extremely thorough argument against the current iteration of capitalism and for, essentially, socialism, then this book is for you!
The book is well organized, giving frequent in-text reminders about where we are and where we're going. Its first three chapters focus on critiquing the widely held viewpoint that the economy can just keep growing forever. Because it's an underlying assumption to much of economics, most people don't realize how absurd the underpinnings of our current system are—but when the author states them baldly, it's pretty easy to criticize from a lot of different angles, and he does. Chief among them are:
- GDP growth has so far coincided almost exactly with carbon dioxide emissions, which is causing climate change that's destabilizing all of human culture.
- Continuous growth has only occurred with exploitation of unpaid care work, the environment, and the Global South, and we have no evidence to suggest it could do otherwise.
- Women, environmentalists, and the Global South are done with being exploited please and thank you.
Chapters 4-6 are the "now what do we do" that talks a lot about "commoning" and "municipalizing" services and business sectors, which is, in fact, socialism—although degrowth is explicitly not arguing for centrally planned socialist states but for cooperatives, local assemblies and planning, and a return to more participatory democracy. This is more democratic socialism than social-safety-net democracy, though.
While degrowth ideals do feel somewhat unreachable, part of the point of the book is to inspire people with what a different economy and world could look like, because you can't make anything happen until you envision it. From that perspective, the book succeeds, because once you can imagine any one path to any one alternative, it's easier to come up with more.
The 4 stars is because the prose is fairly dense and academic. The author appears to be German, and I have passing familiarity with the obtuseness of academic German writing; it's like a competition to write the most tortured sentences. He has really reined back from the worst of it, but the book is still a lot denser than average American pop-sci, or I guess pop-econ. For example, an American book would've divided it into like 6 parts and devoted a chapter to each sub-heading, rather than 6 chapters with subheadings that lead to 3-digit footnote numbers. He also likes to create hyphenate words in ways that technically make sense but aren't familiar to most readers of English. I had to work hard to read it, but it was a great introduction, and I have now added several books he referenced to my future reading list.
The book is well organized, giving frequent in-text reminders about where we are and where we're going. Its first three chapters focus on critiquing the widely held viewpoint that the economy can just keep growing forever. Because it's an underlying assumption to much of economics, most people don't realize how absurd the underpinnings of our current system are—but when the author states them baldly, it's pretty easy to criticize from a lot of different angles, and he does. Chief among them are:
- GDP growth has so far coincided almost exactly with carbon dioxide emissions, which is causing climate change that's destabilizing all of human culture.
- Continuous growth has only occurred with exploitation of unpaid care work, the environment, and the Global South, and we have no evidence to suggest it could do otherwise.
- Women, environmentalists, and the Global South are done with being exploited please and thank you.
Chapters 4-6 are the "now what do we do" that talks a lot about "commoning" and "municipalizing" services and business sectors, which is, in fact, socialism—although degrowth is explicitly not arguing for centrally planned socialist states but for cooperatives, local assemblies and planning, and a return to more participatory democracy. This is more democratic socialism than social-safety-net democracy, though.
While degrowth ideals do feel somewhat unreachable, part of the point of the book is to inspire people with what a different economy and world could look like, because you can't make anything happen until you envision it. From that perspective, the book succeeds, because once you can imagine any one path to any one alternative, it's easier to come up with more.
The 4 stars is because the prose is fairly dense and academic. The author appears to be German, and I have passing familiarity with the obtuseness of academic German writing; it's like a competition to write the most tortured sentences. He has really reined back from the worst of it, but the book is still a lot denser than average American pop-sci, or I guess pop-econ. For example, an American book would've divided it into like 6 parts and devoted a chapter to each sub-heading, rather than 6 chapters with subheadings that lead to 3-digit footnote numbers. He also likes to create hyphenate words in ways that technically make sense but aren't familiar to most readers of English. I had to work hard to read it, but it was a great introduction, and I have now added several books he referenced to my future reading list.
August 12, 2023
If you read enough critical works on capitalism, there are certain underlying currents you pick up and incorporate into your philosophy: if it can be conceptualized it will be commodified, we are on a dangerous trajectory concreting our entire planet, and growth is the undying pathogen of capitalism driving our worst tendencies.
Several authors make these points in variants of a singular congruous critique. But it is nice to finally find a book that centrally situates the growth aspect of capitalist catastrophe, and makes and effective case for undoing the deadly catalyst’s effects.
But this book isn’t just a lambast against “bigger is better”. It’s easy to flandarize the capitalist critique as an age old condemnation of greed. Growth deserves far more credit for its wide array of carnage. The authors here combine the classical criticism, predicted by the old Marxists, with the new criticisms against Silicon Valley and the green growth coalition’s destructive response to growth-fueled ecological collapse.
The authors do this by separating the various strands of growth critique and emerging degrowth arguments. Drawing from economics ecology, feminism, political science, and other disciples: the book won’t fail to convince you of a problem and various policies (near and far) to try and take us out of this hellhole.
The authors try their hardest to present their arguments accessibly, and for the most part they succeed. Drawing from loads of academic theories does prevent some road bumps in regard, but nothing to discourage reading. If anything this book, true to its message, encourages readers not to rush through journey and slowly digest the thorough formulations towards reimagining our damaged societies.
Recommended for anyone who senses something is wrong.
Several authors make these points in variants of a singular congruous critique. But it is nice to finally find a book that centrally situates the growth aspect of capitalist catastrophe, and makes and effective case for undoing the deadly catalyst’s effects.
But this book isn’t just a lambast against “bigger is better”. It’s easy to flandarize the capitalist critique as an age old condemnation of greed. Growth deserves far more credit for its wide array of carnage. The authors here combine the classical criticism, predicted by the old Marxists, with the new criticisms against Silicon Valley and the green growth coalition’s destructive response to growth-fueled ecological collapse.
The authors do this by separating the various strands of growth critique and emerging degrowth arguments. Drawing from economics ecology, feminism, political science, and other disciples: the book won’t fail to convince you of a problem and various policies (near and far) to try and take us out of this hellhole.
The authors try their hardest to present their arguments accessibly, and for the most part they succeed. Drawing from loads of academic theories does prevent some road bumps in regard, but nothing to discourage reading. If anything this book, true to its message, encourages readers not to rush through journey and slowly digest the thorough formulations towards reimagining our damaged societies.
Recommended for anyone who senses something is wrong.
July 17, 2025
I started this book 6 months ago, put it down because it was a bit too academic and strenuous work for a bedtime read and finally picked it up again last month and made it through. In the end, it was a valuable read for me but not very degrowth-beginner friendly.
Take the growth critique section for example. At first the structure of the critique into multiple currents felt a bit rigid and hard to follow, but upon second reading it started to make sense and made for a nice multifaceted overview.
Why did several chapters take me two readings? Likely because the writing is academic, textbook style, with frequent reference to concepts that may be obvious to the writers but not to a lay audience and those concepts are not always defined in an accessible way.
Overall I labored throughout but in the end I am glad I read it and found it enriching.
It has given me a lot of references to improve the "degrowth game" I'm working on, beyond Hickel and Parrique.
Take the growth critique section for example. At first the structure of the critique into multiple currents felt a bit rigid and hard to follow, but upon second reading it started to make sense and made for a nice multifaceted overview.
Why did several chapters take me two readings? Likely because the writing is academic, textbook style, with frequent reference to concepts that may be obvious to the writers but not to a lay audience and those concepts are not always defined in an accessible way.
Overall I labored throughout but in the end I am glad I read it and found it enriching.
It has given me a lot of references to improve the "degrowth game" I'm working on, beyond Hickel and Parrique.
February 12, 2025
For those who want to think critically and holistically about degrowth.
By taking a tour through the many strands of degrowth thought and discourse, the authors weave together a strong and coherent narrative upon which a solid mental model for thinking and engaging holistically with degrowth can be based. It’s heavy on theory and criticism, but accessibly written.
By addressing tensions head-on, the authors offer their own perspective which I felt was both nuanced and wise.
In particular, I appreciated the authors’ discussion on the desirable interplay between bottom-up autonomous experimentation, top-down policy (non-reformist) reform, and the development of a democratic movement; acknowledging, but ultimately redirecting, claims that any one of these alone is the ultimate solution and suggesting a reinforcing feedback loop among the three.
By taking a tour through the many strands of degrowth thought and discourse, the authors weave together a strong and coherent narrative upon which a solid mental model for thinking and engaging holistically with degrowth can be based. It’s heavy on theory and criticism, but accessibly written.
By addressing tensions head-on, the authors offer their own perspective which I felt was both nuanced and wise.
In particular, I appreciated the authors’ discussion on the desirable interplay between bottom-up autonomous experimentation, top-down policy (non-reformist) reform, and the development of a democratic movement; acknowledging, but ultimately redirecting, claims that any one of these alone is the ultimate solution and suggesting a reinforcing feedback loop among the three.
January 31, 2024
A very informative book on degrowth. I also read less is more, which spends more time on the history of capitalism. This book has focuses more on critiques on growth of various movements and how this influences the degrowth movement. I like the last chapters that focus more on how to move further. I think that this chapter is written in a realistic but hopeful way. Although the book is super informative, the information is sometimes a bit too dense or the English a bit too difficult (at least for me).
July 15, 2023
Such an important and necessary book. It has all the right words.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 113 reviews