frengels

I read this a few years ago and several things jumped out at me as troubling. Primarily defining "risk labor" as a legitimate category of work, allowing for capitalists to be counted as workers.

I generally support China, in that they should resist American Imperialism and are not as repressive as liberal propaganda says, however from a Marxist point of view it's difficult to read discussions like this happening within the party and conclude China is actually socialist. How is this discussion not simply the logical end of Dengism, an attempt to discredit Mao and his leadership of China after the civil war?

In my view degrowth is required, either we do it on our own or climate change will degrow for us. It's necessary not only to combat climate change but also ecological destruction. Jason Hickel is maybe the most well-known author on the topic, though it's a much broader field.

To be clear, degrowth is not a form of primitivism, it's not genocidal or Malthusian. It's simply the concept that especially/primarily in the global north/imperial core production and consumption must be curbed, we are simply using more resources than can be supported by the planet. Planned obsolescence and unchecked consumption cannot continue. Those living in areas with sufficient productive ability need to shift production towards things that are necessary to allow those in the global south the ability to achieve standards of living available in the global north.

I know it's controversial among some communists, so I wanted to see what lemmygrad thinks about the concept.