Energy can be made more efficiently with less waste being given off as heat, and renewable sources can generate less heat and even have a cooling effect on the Earth in some cases. “Degrowth” as a movement is different from cutting largely unnecessary production, like fast fashion, it implies focusing on small scale production with presently capable methods, even if developing technology and using larger scale production can be more green.

I think pretty much all socialists are ecological at the same time these days, so I’m not sure what identifying yourself as a degrowth communist adds, kinda like calling yourself a pro-LGBTQIA+ communist or an anticapitalist communist. Lemmy.ml is more than fine for you, I’d say, many will probably have similar issues with specifically aligning with degrowth as I did though.

You keep claiming that there are “physical limits,” which isn’t a magic spell. Of course there are physical limits, I’m not unaware of it. The problem with degrowth is that in an effort to not spend resources on improving efficiency and developing in a green direction, it counterintuitively costs more to the environment to try to keep present level technology and produce less. You inevitably end up in a Malthusian direction, turning to eco-fascism.

Yes, production of useless waste like fast fashion can and should end. Yes, much of what we produce is wasted and this must be eliminated. This is where I can align with degrowth. However, the idea that we need to work smaller and smaller rather than larger and more efficiently is where the math loses out for Degrowth.

Here’s a handy example. For socialists, replacing cars with solar powered trains dramatically reduces emissions while improving transport and lowering resource cost. Degrowth doesn’t take this position, though. Degrowth tries to lower present output without building onto newer. This is the trap. We can all agree on cutting out the bullshit, but the answer isn’t to try to strip back what we already do.

This is why degrowth leads to ecofascism. With present output and methods, we are unsustainable headed to disaster. People do not want to lower their lifestyles significantly, yet for degrowth to work it needs a population collapse. This leads to Malthusian politics and a desire to eliminate large portions of humanity to live current lifestyles in a more sustainable manner.

The problem is, that doesn’t even work. Killing off huge portions of humanity would still lead to collapse at present technology, without advancing it. People will inevitably advance, and grow again, and this time the world will well and truly end for Humanity.

I do agree that I’m more optimistic, but I also believe I am more realistic.

I’m aware that advancements also elevate living standards. However, your conception of this necessitating destruction of the environment is incorrect, and this is not at all the same as capitalism’s incessant drive towards accumulation. Degrowth as a focus is the wrong approach, advanced technology like developed rail systems actually save the environment more than car-centric infrastructure. We have to advance further to protect the environment, and combine that with climate-focuses approaches, not slow our advancement and stick with small-scale production, which is less environmentally efficient.

Degrowth is a trap. Environmentalist socialism is necessary, and is the actual way to protect and preserve the environment. Socialism will end fast fashion, incessant trinket production, and more that currently only serve to accelerate capital accumulation, while advancing technology that is more environmentally efficient.

It’s really as simple as this.

The “need motive” is not what you think it is. There is not an imperitive to endlessly expand. I am not treating scientific planning like it can bypass thermodynamics, that is a strawman. Profit doesn’t just change distribution, it changes production, because profit needs more sales. This creates new demand that then is fulfilled, this is the basics of why socialist ecology is necessary.

Again, the “need motive” does not have the same endless feedback loop that the profit motive does.

The reason for overproduction is because the profit motive requires the sale of as many commodities as possible. Socialism essentially means we can scientifically plan production and distribution, meaning we aren’t constrained by this any longer. As for the bits you are talking about like fast fashion, planned obsolescence, and the military industrial complex, we aren’t at odds here, these are products of capitalism and the profit motive.

Advancement is not a “culture.” It is a historical process. You are confusing the problems of capitalism to be problems of culture, and not material conditions, which leads to errors in judgment. All environmentalism going forward requires socialism as a basis, which will end overconsumption because the base of overconsumption is overproduction for sale of commodities.

Communist ecology does not ignore the material limits of reality, that’s a strawman. Advancing recycling, renewable materials, renewable energy sources, all of it requires more advanced technology, but can be done in a fashion that does not harm the environment. My point is that degrowth does not work, and actually works against the capabilities of advanced ecology. We need to advance onto socialism as quickly as possible so as to end overconsumption and overproduction, but we should not try to freeze where we are at.

I guess what I am trying to say is that advancement does not mean endless production, and large industry does not mean overproduction and overconsumption.

Developing and advancing does not mean continuing consumerism. The overproduction of cheap plastic goods and planned obsolescence are purely problems of capital, not socialism. We can develop more intelligently, without relying on a system that requires production of endless trinkets at the destruction of the environment. Extraction will not end, sure, but it can be done more intelligently, and it can be minimized.

Historical socialism has faced numerous problems due to lack of development. They didn’t simply develop to compete, but because the basis of socialism is in large industry. We cannot freeze history at a communalist level where we are hunter/gatherers, we have to advance to socialism so that we can actually intelligently solve problems leading to climate change and environmental destruction, rather than having capitalism ensure it is destroyed.

Communist ecology is a wide field, and you’d do well to study it.

Changing from the profit motive to a planned economy dramatically changes how and why human development is steered. Socialism of course will advance production, but it ends consumerism, and having humans over capital means we can decide to have a more harmonious impact on the environment. Profit makes this pretty much impossible, as capital is a control system for accumulation.

I think you’re confusing the profit motive with development. Accumulation of capital is what drives endless expansion and overconsumption. Socialism is necessary to stop that cycle, as rather than profit, suiting the needs of humanity becomes the goal.

Again, no examples provided for natural resources that don’t need to be processed in any way, shape or form, including transport, as the average way to get them. No, it isn’t obvious at all that there are natural resources that involve no processing or transport yet are sold this way on average, and you continue to refuse to provide an example for something so “obvious.” Very unserious.

Regarding Marx on value, you’re confusing how Marx builds up his argument, proceeding from the most basic element upward and outward, and developing a many-sided view, with the totality of the base of his argument. Marx is specifically referencing how prices appear “random” at first, as prices of each commodity is itself different, but that they can all exchange for each other in consistent ratios through the universal commodity, money, and that this all proceeds from how we produce and distribute, ie labor. This naturally also includes natural resources, which themselves have no “value” alone.

In other words, prices are not actually random, despite first appearances, and they all reduce down to their constituent elements, the basic block of value being labor-time as this is the basic input in production from which all else flows. Capitalism is a control system for the distribution of labor, and works to accumulate as much capital as possible.

None of this is based on “assumption,” it’s based on clear observation of how capitalism functions.

You can both produce more efficiently and without excess without stopping advancement.

Not really, we need to advance to make production more green, efficient, and to reduce our impact on the environment.

Progress doesn’t mean the destruction of the environment. You cannot stop the clock. Progress is necessary to stop the destruction, and to take a more harmonious approach. See how China is combatting desertification, and is rapidly electrifying and adopting solar as the biggest new energy source. This is progress.

As for the state protecting the people, this is progressive. Nay, revolutionary. The people take political power in their own hands, and can radically transform the world and better meet their place in it. The wheel of history is pressed forward.

I fear you’re on a pipeline towards eco-fascism. Not saying you’re an eco-fascist, to be clear, but the combination of trying to stop progress while also adopting prop environmental policies can definitely lead people down that road. It’s not a nice road.

I understand, but at least if we are to consider the march towards communism as the continued development of humanity onto a qualitatively new level, this is a progression. We can be conservationists with respect to the environment, but certainly not conservative. To try to hold back the wheel of history is to be reactionary, not progressive.

The state is not opposed to the market, which is why I brought up the Nordic countries and China. In capitalism, the state serves capitalists. In socialism, the state serves the working classes. A socialist state is necessary for supremacy over capital, which is why revolution is necessary.

I don’t really think “conservative” is a helpful angle due to the connotations. I think “pragmatic, and planned” are good descriptors. The advancement of green energy, the radical restructuring of society, all of this is definitely not seen as “conservative.” Further, I’m confused if you mean social democracy, or socialism proper (ie, Nordic capitalism vs. China’s socialist market economy).

Depends on how you sort, locally or by all, new comments or active.

Lemmy.ml isn’t really defederated. Individual users may block it, but that doesn’t stop me from seeing their viewpoints, it just stops them from seeing mine. You could make a Lemmy.zip account, and just subscribe to the communities across instances you want to see, then scroll by “subscribed,” making your own local feed.

I don’t know what you mean by “moderately conservative communists,” communists are definitionally radicals.

Do you want to see communist content more? Lemmy.ml or something like Lemmy.zip can maximize federation. Do you want to pretty much only see content from leftists of various stripes, and want to defederate from non-leftists? Hexbear.net is nice too. It depends on what you want.

Personally, I think the best thing to do is scroll some instances locally without an account and see if you like the vibe, then transfer over to the one that fits you the best.

Communism posting is usually on Lemmy.ml, Hexbear.net, and Lemmygrad.ml.