@MattMastodon @breadandcircuses @cian @MarkBrigham @mick @vmatinnia @YaRo @jackofalltrades
I have similar concerns about the clarity - or perhaps more the detail - of degrowth thinking.
Take for example the last point in the Degrowth 101 article:
"Changing corporate governance so that the “fiduciary duty” of a company’s leaders shifts from maximizing short term shareholder profits to considering social and ecological impacts."
This is my area - I used to design organisational structures for social enterprise, so really know the detail of building social and environmental responsibility into company structures - and it's not that simple. Sharehilders own most companies and appoint directors - and they have enforceable legal rights, including against having their financial returns compromised, quite apart from directors' fiduciary duties.
In reality, to incentivise social and environmental responsibility over growth and profit, a fundamental revision of company law and related commercial law, not to mention accounting standards and the whole auditing profession would be required. Then there's the 'ecology' of such changes - how they would ripple out to investors' and others' behaviours - which would include, incidentally, the collapse of the banking system (interest is paid out of growth).
What sounds technical and innocuous - changing company directors' fiduciary duties - in fact implies (in my view) either little change, or, if it is to achieve the desired end, massive complementary changes that (in effect) end capitalism.
I know that we can't expect introductory articles to get into all this detail - but to be honest I'm looking in vain to find sufficient detail anywhere in the degrowth literature at present.
Just to be clear - I'm a great believer in degrowth, which is why I want us to get real about it.