Activism and degrowth

General introdution to Theory of Change 

Eroding capitalism allows for the progressive reduction of capitalistic provisioning forms without direct confrontation across all areas. This strategy fosters changes toward universal provisioning within planetary boundaries, aiming for a more democratic and fairer society. However, this approach faces several challenges and uncertainties.

The primary concern is whether erosion and the growth of marginal alternatives can withstand capitalism’s pressures, such as price dumping, low wages, and difficulty accessing finance or land, and if these changes can occur quickly enough to prevent a climate catastrophe.

Another critical question is identifying the most promising areas for this erosion. I suggest focusing on housing due to increasing artificial scarcity and resistance to its treatment as a speculative asset. Energy, particularly electricity, is also crucial. Dubbed the 'blood of social metabolism,' electricity requires the deployment of decentralized, low-carbon energy sources, decoupled from capital accumulation to effectively reduce environmental pressures. The sluggish substitution of for fossil fuels for renewables and environmental disputes over large projects underscore the need for social and state interventions in energy planning.

These areas highlight the essential components for a successful erosion of capitalism, which must include strong alliances between alternatives and resistance strategies.

Taming Capitalism 

The discussion on Stay Grounded's strategies reflects an environmentally and socially conscious effort to tame capitalism within the aviation industry. Their policy proposals, such as increasing taxation, ending industry subsidies, implementing caps, and establishing fair pricing, aim to mitigate the negative effects of capitalist aviation without necessarily adopting a socialist aviation system. These measures align with Erik Olin Wright’s concept of taming capitalism.

However, the social support and permanence of these policies are vulnerable to economic crises and government changes, making it relatively easy to reverse actions such as taxation and caps. This situation highlights the fragile nature of these reforms in a capitalist system where the majority of citizens depend on labor income and media is largely controlled by private capital.

The research question then arises: 

• What additional strategies would allow this policy package to degrow and make the transition out of mass flying resilient to political and social fluctuations ? 
• Would a lasting reduction in aviation and its direct and indirect harms require dismantling the capital-led provision of aviation? 
• Can the indirect harms of aviation truly be overcome if alternative modes of transport for mass tourism and the need for meaningless jobs remain?

My personal view is that to prevent a growth-based comeback in aviation, we would need international public ownership under democratic and environmental limits. This approach could offer a resilient way to ensure that only truly essential flights occur, placing the aviation sector under public control with strict regulatory frameworks designed to uphold social and environmental standards. This will not eliminate the pressure for jobs and many of the harms of tourism, but it will neutralize their direct effects.

Smashing Capitalism: Civil Disobedience

Theodor Ebert's stages of escalation and Andreas Malm's historical and recent analyses of pacifism have aided my analysis of strategies used by climate activist groups such as Fridays for Future and Last Generation. 

I've observed that Fridays for Future often remains mired in Stage 1 confrontational actions (protests that does not interrupt significant strategic productive capacities). They succeed in garnering media attention and attracting followers but fail to achieve significant change. In my view, FFF has not effectively articulated a constructive vision of the future or made clear system change claims that can challenge existing techno-fixes and the Green Deal. The critique that "You must do something about the crisis, or demanding change is too broad" can lead to procrastination or ecofascism. Its narrow understanding of violence and limited strategy catalogue use has created divisions with potential allies, including civil disobedience and anticolonial groups. Although notable figures like Greta Thunberg participate in blockades on fossil fuel infrastructure, it is evident that the movement has not sufficiently engaged with the working-class struggle or anticapitalist visions that transition to a system generating public abundance within planetary boundaries. Last Generation's overuse and fetishization of civil disobedience actions on consumption (car driving blocking), despite their ineffectiveness and the lack of empathy they generate with the working class, have inadvertently benefited anti-climate activism promoted by the far right.  

Both movements could benefit from leveraging more constructive strategies, broadening the spectrum of actions to create alliances with the working class, and focusing on confronting fossil fuel capital rather than disrupting everyday workers.

This discussion raises several unanswered questions:

1. How can climate justice movements shape and expand constructive narratives and examples of a future post-capitalism to generate broader civil support and institutional pressure?
2. To what extent can legal tools support the illegalization of fossil fuel infrastructure, the absence of climate policies, or luxury production?
3. Why is the left so hesitant to embrace ecosocialism and degrowth? Is it due to a lack of understanding or the legacy of productivism that makes progressive agendas too mild to combat climate change and environmental justice?
4. How can we reclaim working-class organizational power to transition workers in coal, natural gas, fossil fuels, automotive, and fast fashion industries to green jobs?
5. Given the high mobility of capital, would sabotage only make capital and work to be evaded to another location in the absence of international networks?

 

Escaping Capitalism: Squatting

The illegal reappropriation of private spaces is a strategy to escape capitalist scarcity and advocate for better social uses. Squatting can reclaim the commons, reduce reliance on international finance, and make better use of existing spaces, while considering society's diverse values and ways of living. The debate on the state’s role and citizens' obligations is complex and the interactions between different positions should acknowledge that and avoid populisms.

Key questions include:

• Is the standardization of housing as a right a violation of certain groups' autonomy?
• What are community autonomy limits if some members avoid or barely contribute to the commons?
• How can we maintain diversity while fostering shared responsibility, especially in housing and space management?

Squatting garners moral support by addressing the deprivation of basic rights and the misuse of private properties (land, houses, offices...). It can be a necessity or a political statement, also in the global North, this is evidenced by nearly 100,000 annual evictions in Spain that illustrate the borderless impacts of capitalism.

Further inquiries:

• How does squatting reconcile local community moral conflicts?
• How can we prevent the exploitation of squatting for profit, such as key trafficking in Barcelona?
• Is squatting justifiable in an ecosocialist system, if so, under which premises?
• What are legal alternatives for those fearing repression after exhausting all options for a fair access to housing or land?
• Why aren't evicted families protected as other violence victims are?
• Can core degrowth policies like work time reduction be feasible with the an increasingly expensive, scarce and precarious housing?
• What additional data, beyond the existing 4 million empty houses in Spain with increasing prices, could challenge the capitalist mantra that the solution to the chronic crisis is more supply?

Resisting Capitalism: Coomunication

While attending Manuel's class, I find myself with mixed feelings. On one hand, I am inspired by his efforts and those of others who have achieved some victories in the fight against capitalism and its byproducts like colonialism, extractivism, and racism. However, these brave acts seem like mere drops in an ocean of crises, with species after species and community after community facing relentless threats. More significantly, these strategies do not appear to be steering us in the right direction overall. We witness televised genocide and persecution of those who denounce the obvious—we are already past 1.5 degrees, yet the acceleration of emissions and planetary pressures continues. Change is possible, but the level of struggle required for all life on this planet to have the right to life is unprecedented, especially in the global north.

• Could the strategies discussed in the class truly achieve the systemic change needed to reverse the social and environmental crises? 
• If so, why haven't they succeeded yet, despite decades of anti-colonial and environmental activism? 
• Why do demands for environmental or human rights protection seldom align with a clear anti-capitalist and pro-ecosocialist agenda beyond resistance? 
• Why is it so challenging for climate movements outside of degrowth in the GN to center their focus on degrowth,ecosocialism or other futures that balance human and planetary autonomy? 
• Moreover, why is economic communication by activists, which could delegitimize capitalism and propose constructive alternatives, so rare?