Let me register my distaste for the dialectical conditions that have made it appear necessary to show that Marx himself would've championed degrowth communism. Is it not sufficient to articulate an interesting idea inspired by a reading of Marx and then argue its merits? What, beyond a display of scholastic prowess and one-up-manship, comes of a disagreement about whether the idea is genuinely Marxian?
Not only is such purity testing unbecoming. It is also, and perhaps precisely because of its unbecomingness, an obstacle in attracting adherents and reaching across coalitions.
To reiterate, and to make myself clear: my specific complaint here is not about the author or his ideas. It's a complaint about the circumstances that make him and his interlocutors feel compelled to quibble about whether or not his ideas are genuinely Marxian.
Before getting lost in the woods, take a look at the linguistic meaning of "degrowth" >
https://gl-10190.medium.com/debunking-degrowth-part-ii-aded18d44652
Thanks for this guest post. One comment:
Let me register my distaste for the dialectical conditions that have made it appear necessary to show that Marx himself would've championed degrowth communism. Is it not sufficient to articulate an interesting idea inspired by a reading of Marx and then argue its merits? What, beyond a display of scholastic prowess and one-up-manship, comes of a disagreement about whether the idea is genuinely Marxian?
Not only is such purity testing unbecoming. It is also, and perhaps precisely because of its unbecomingness, an obstacle in attracting adherents and reaching across coalitions.
To reiterate, and to make myself clear: my specific complaint here is not about the author or his ideas. It's a complaint about the circumstances that make him and his interlocutors feel compelled to quibble about whether or not his ideas are genuinely Marxian.