We really believe that degrowth is a more complex, substantial and significant concept and movement than its treatment in the Hickel interview. We think that the degrowth movement has a very important role to play in the challenging political context.
I think a useful way to frame the issue is Erik Olin Wright’s concept of eroding capitalism: We simultaneously need the insterstitial initiatives that build and prefigure a new logic of economic and communal organization, as we need to tame capitalism and create space for the new alternatives on the institutional level of regions, states and multinational institutions. In my view Hickel is predominantly focusing on the latter, while the authors are focusing on the first logic.
I’m not convinced there needs to be any conflict, as I argue both movements need each other, and both logics are needed to bring about a post-capitalist future as EOW visions. Without the institutionally oriented movement, the new initiatives will not have space to grow and scale, and will be crushed. Without the new interstitial initiatives, the institutionally oriented movement will not have anything to base it’s vision and argument on, to draw support from, to build on, and it will eventually be co-opted by capital interests. I think instead of a confrontation, a recognition of each actor’s place in the bigger strategy would be fruitful. Of course, if one completely disagrees with EOW’s framework then it’s another story.