Best of

[@hex2637]

We owe a system change to all opressed peoples, all future human generations and all species on earth. Ecosocialism needs to be implemented, by all means necessary.

[@marksmit8112]

You nailed it Jason Hickel. Wrapped it all up with a bow.

[@thehiveinitiative]

Incredible and inspiring. Let’s all rally our skills, set aside competitive impulses and make the better future we all want happen. We each have a hand to use towards making post-growth happen. Our hand could click share on this video. Our hand could wave “no” to overconsumption. Our hand could reach out to help others understand what we could have if we all came together.

[@siljahenderson4541]

Brilliant speech, literally life-saving agenda 👏👏

[@jana.droppers653]

I recommend to all his book "Less is More". Provocative in many ways. Should we be hopeful that at least some of these concepts will be applied in reality? I do hope so, but I am not optimistic. Humankind thus far has not shown to be very perceptive, and willing to changing its self-destruction ways. After all, that is what got us into the mess we are in. We never paid serious attention to the Club of Rome´s study from 50 years ago. What is going to make us pay attention this time around?

[@GoAwayNow-iz3du]

Nothing is stopping you culturally suicidal Marxissists from offing yourselves. No, you are so evil that you expect your children & neighbors to sacrifice themselves to justify your comfortable, meaningless lives.

[@coolioso808]

I think the only thing keeping people from building a better system, using many of these principles of less is more, is that most people just don't know where to start, exactly. There are thousands of well-meaning non-profits, NGOs and cooperative networks out there trying to give people some mutual aid and better support, but it is all fragmented, it isn't as cooperative and collaborative as it could be. I think once people are made aware of a community-based strategy that they can contribute to that makes their own community better, but also shares ideas and even some products with other communities trying to do the same, to enhance the speed at which communities can become largely self-sufficient, that will be the catalyst that gets the ball rolling! My hopes are with the One Small Town initiative, based on the principles of Ubuntu Contributionism with Michael Tellinger and The Zeitgeist Movement from Peter Joseph, with his 4th film coming out in March, called "Zeitgeist: Requiem" (trailer online to watch now) and he's planning a talk and community action plan to come from that. The principles of great thinkers and authors could all be combined, as necessary, to take advantage of a community cooperative organization that has a secure, solid platform and reasonable means for everyday people to contribute and get better and better benefits as it develops.

[@eroceanos]

Ow, Jason is great! ❤

[@misterfunnybones]

The global elite wouldn't even turn down the AC on the yacht by 1°C after this speech. We're heading for the cliff edge, but it will be a slow roll over the precipice as the environment places limits on fresh water & food, as it already has in many geographies. Prep the helicopter on the forward bow as I'm going ashore for a few hours, then get the toys from the tender garage ready for when I return.

[@urallwyz3498]

Brilliant 👍🎉❤ Forward On

[@jzno]

The President of Earth has spoken. ❤️

[@gensdemonpays]

Just fantastic to be able to describe problems and solutions of the whole world in ess than 15'. Thank you Jason !

[@qntnotes9427]

when did he do that? He simply parroted ideological narratives while fooling a naive audicence into believe his hypotheticals and slogans are sensible solutions.

[@coolioso808]

Pretty good. But there is more! From years ago. If you haven't seen Zeitgeist films by Peter Joseph, it is well worth it to go check them out, especially since Zeitgeist: Requiem is coming out soon in March 2024, trailer is online to see!

[@PEdulis]

A good speech. One more thing that comes to mind to cut the influence of the rich is to finally introduce the Tobin tax on trading with shares. If not even one percent would be paid for each transaction, we could finance everything we wish for from these incomes and it would slow down the insanely fast buying and selling of shares of which nobody really profits except for those who are already rich anyway.

[@qntnotes9427]

well, it's a good speech if you're into Stalinist conspiracy theories for sure. No surprise the EU Far-Left has invited Hickel who often was featured as a guest speaker to Putin's Russia Today.

[@coolioso808]

Fair idea, I don't mind it, but I tend to look at things as systems and functions, so with how the power dynamic and money interests are now in the capitalist world, how do you think any tax law like that would get passed by the elites in charge, currently? My suggestion would be to build a better system from the community level up, so we have the strength, in unity, to support each other's basic needs and not have to feed the corporate beast and then we can really have leverage to speak our demands, pressure lawmakers and, if possible, vote in ones that actually reflect the needs of the people. Something like the One Small Town strategy or what Peter Joseph describes in his talk "A Viable Society" could be a good start.

[@PEdulis]

@@coolioso808 I know this will not be easy, either way - whether trying "my" approach or yours, there will always be a lot of opposition from some of the rich but not all of them and the trick will be to convince enough of them that ultimately, it is in their own interest to get a more equal society. On one hand, you have people like Warren Buffet who famously said “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” but on the other hand, you have people like Nick Hanauer. If you haven't heard of him yet, watch his video called "Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming | Nick Hanauer" to get an idea of how even "plutocrats" can fight for the right cause.

[@DavidKlausa]

@@coolioso808 That's right, as long as we are feeding the corporate beast, we can't expect change. Buy less stuff!

[@ericksoun]

👏👏👏👏👏👏

[@hex2637]

11:10 "some may say this sounds utopian, but these policies have popular support" when has that ever changed anything? The implementation of policies that are truly anti/post-capitalist is not feasible in bourgeois democracies. I hope I'm proven wrong tho.

[@coolioso808]

Maybe that's because we haven't chipped away at the foundation of capitalism enough yet? We haven't created a new, cooperative, localized system of self-sufficient mutual aid network communities that produce most of what everybody needs, in abundance, for about "Zero Marginal Cost" (as Jeremy Rifkin would put it), so that people can comfortably quit their corporate crapfest jobs, like at Walmart, Amazon, McDonalds, etc. and pressure whatever level of governments they can to implement these reasonable measures that the people are demanding. The only grassroots movements I know of that has a strong platform ready to go and a collaborative community action plan is One Small Town Contributionism. And I'm looking forward to seeing what plan comes after Peter Joseph's 4th Zeitgeist film, Requiem in March.

[@Rossell-t9b]

UNLESS RICH COUNTRIES ADOPT A PLANNED ECONOMY, DEGROWTH IS NOT POSSIBLE. THE PLUTOCRACY WILL NOT ALLOW A PLANNED ECONOMY THAT LIMITS GREED. PLUTOCRACY RULES, FOLKS. SO DREAM ON

[@holgre3470]

There are more of us than them. We need to regain a balance of power so that all benefit especialy the global south

[@A3Kr0n]

I'm tired of people telling us what we need to do because it ain't gonna happen. Now they can all go home happy thinking they've helped save the world while continuing to consume their 11 kw of power. That's called a hypocrite.

[@edithcrowther9604]

Many great men saw this moment coming long ago - the moment when all of humanity finally hit the undeniable, concrete, limits to growth after non-renewable commodities, from coal to vanadium to groundwater, had petered out one by one. The contemporary Degrowth movement can trace its roots back to the anti-industrialist trends of the 19th century, developed in Great Britain by John Ruskin, William Morris and the Arts and Crafts movement (1819-1900), in the United States by Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862), and in Russia by Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910). Many great works of literature are warnings against industrial over-growth - Frankenstein, Wuthering Heights, Moby Dick, The Ancient Mariner, to name but a few. No-one paid any attention - and now the worst culprits are in the former Third World. No doubt great men are emerging in the Third World too, nowadays, warning against Overdevelopment - but again, no-one will pay any attention. None of these pioneers were either "left" or "right". They were anti progress if the progress was doing more harm than good. The actual term "degrowth" properly appeared during the 1970s, proposed by André Gorz (1972) and intellectuals such as Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, Jean Baudrillard, Edward Goldsmith, E.F. Schumacher, Erich Fromm, Paul Goodman and Ivan Illich, whose ideas reflect those of earlier thinkers, such as the economist E. J. Mishan and the industrial historian Tom Rolt [LTC Rolt, the engineer who resurrected England's canals after World War II]. None of these pioneers were "left" or "right" either. They were more pessimistic than the first bunch about the ability of human nature to constrain its liking for progress - modern medicine, enough to eat, water on tap, are just a few of the now indispensable adjuncts to human life in all Nations on Earth, never mind more luxurious items such as youtube (xx). The current bunch of Degrowthers are even more pessimistic still, and so they should be. But they do not include the people in this video, who seem to think that the rest of the world will stop growing if the Occident leads the way. First of all, the Occident is not leading the way at all. And second of all, the rest of the world is even more rabidly pro-Growth than the Global North ever was - plus it contains about 6 billion people as opposed to 2 billion - so it is doing at least 3 times as much damage, probably more. This means that there is no realistic way out other than an almighty collapse - and thus it also means that the only activity worth pursuing, is preparing for this collapse as best we can, in the certain knowledge that it cannot be averted now - if it ever could have been, which I personally doubt as the fruits of Progress are too tempting for all but the most ascetic of hermits. The EU needs to shut up shop now and go and live in the woods (if there are any left). Also these conferences must stop now. They are a waste of time - and of resources. The Occident must stop blaming itself whilst exonerating the rest of the world. And so on.

[@DavidKlausa]

The Global South "contains about 6 billion people as opposed to 2 billion - so it is doing at least 3 times as much damage, probably more." - The math is not that simple. It's not exonerating the South to recognize that the rich have a much larger carbon footprint per capita.

[@edithcrowther9604]

@@DavidKlausa Hallo - most of the world's rich are in and from the Global South these days - originally anyway, though many like to live in the Global North as soon as they can afford to, whilst maintaining their sources of income in the "emerging" economies. This is not just billionaires - most of the upper middle classes in Asia and Africa and Latin America shift to the Global North if they can. The majority of legal immigration to the USA is from China and India, with Latin America in third place now. Illegal migrants are also relatively wealthy, compared to the people they leave behind in their native land, and also compared to the underclass in the "rich" country they are moving to in the First World.

[@DavidKlausa]

@@edithcrowther9604 I'm talking about per capita. An average American is twice as wasteful as an average Chinese person, and 10X worse than an average Indian.

[@frankblangeard8865]

Sounds like he is proposing a workers revolution followed by a one world communist government in which each contributes according to his ability and each receives according to his needs. Wasn't that already tried in the Soviet Union?

[@andy3341]

It does sound like that, but I think he's advocating more for a democratically constrained economy, not communist style top down, fixed-rate economy. So a dynamic economy that operates within planetary and social boundaries.

[@urallwyz3498]

No it wasn't really.

[@ytvc6039]

in communism there are no governments cause there are no states anymore

[@hex2637]

The alternative is extinction

[@DavidKlausa]

Wasn't capitalism already tried?

[@ThePtoleme]

What he calls "constant plunder of goods, ressources and labour from the global South" enables millions to live in those countries. There's no more plunder than when natural resources are extracted in Australia or Canada. The more nonsense he spouts, the more applause he gets.

[@finchbevdale2069]

Most Indigenous Canadians would beg to differ with your blinkered analysis.

[@ytvc6039]

they would live a lot better if they would keep the wealth which comes from the extractions and labour in their countries. I guess you dont understand the word plunder

[@qntnotes9427]

@@ytvc6039 i guess he understands it very well. I guess you don't understand that sand is not as valuable as microchips, or that a Tesla electric car is worth more than scrap metal and so on. Saudis and Dubai got insanely rich from that same trade. Even Angola's president & children are billionares. The problem you scapegoat has different real causes.

[@hex2637]

What an extremely ignorant and privileged take.

[@HealingLifeKwikly]

"What he calls "constant plunder of goods, ressources and labour from the global South" enables millions to live in those countries. There's no more plunder than when natural resources are extracted in Australia or Canada." You might want to read his books. He documents well how capitalism has been a system of exploitation of those with less power by those with more power ever since its inception. The rules of the modern global economy has been written by rich countries to allow them to exploit poor countries and drain trillions of dollars in wealth from them unfairly each year. It could be called organized crime, but of course wealthy nations write the laws in ways that make such plunder officially legal.

[@TheBacoTrein]

I like the challenge on mainstream capitalism, but jeez this man is full crap. First, his DeGrowth movement is just anotther attempt to propose the Communist framing of K. Marx. For example: the rich get rich only at the expense of the poor. The world is a struggle between 2 classes: the "rich" and "commons" (or the "bourgeoisie" and "proletariats" by Marx). Capitalism is only about brainsless profit extraction. Private ventures make the production of goods and services more costly (due to the profit component), less energie/material efficient, and not aligned with societal needs. Capitalism is the source of societal decline. Inequality is a pure problem of distribution and cannot be solved under Capitalism. Second, the climate change component seems to be used as camouflage to slide in his Communist ideas. Probably because he knows it is the ideal platform to gain attenion, and one that is more likely to take in these, by now proven to be, controversial ideas. Third, the uses words as "we now for a fact that", "is absolutely true that", "there is no doubt about that" for statements that are anything but that black and white and agreed upon. For example: he states that there is no empirical evidence at all to link GDP growth per capita to individual wellbeing. The thousands of research papers, books, empircal studies, historical evidence etc making such assertion must all be blatently stupid and wrong, or Hickines inflates his arguments. It is up to you to decide. Fourth, he selectively and manipulatively uses isolated examples to prove his points. For example: in his book he shows that at some point an increase in GDP per capita does not increase life expectancy. Furthermore, a small selection of countries with a much lower GDP per capita than the US have similar or slightly better life expectancies. This is such a dum argument because (a) as off 70-80 years, life expectancy stops being relivant as a measure of happiness, since it is currently our absolute physical limit. (b) there actually is an obvious trend showing that GDP growth increases life expectancy. (c) the data is manipulated as he uses GDP per capita instead of GDP per capita at Purchasing Power Parity; which skews the analysis in his favour. In other interviews he refers to GDP PPP; so he knows the concept and the effects of taking GDP rather than GDP PPP. Another example in his book is that he argues that public transport is more cost effective than private transportation based on average kost per passenger-km. Yes - this may be true for high demand routes between high population dense areas, but falls apart with routes from-to places with low population density. For those routes, the car is much more cost effective. Furthermore, the max travel radius in a given timeframe is much larger by car than by public transport. To understand the relevance of this fact: many analyses have shown that the max travel radius per hour has more impact on your income than the level of education for lower income ocupations, as a larger search area increases the job opportunities Fith, he implicitely argues for a full centrally planned economy as all "life essential goods / services" should be "decommodified". Everything not classified as "life essential" should be eliminated; thus all remaining productive sectors have to fall into planning control. History has already shown the horrors of centrally planned economies. When confronted with historical evidence, his simple defense is: well those economies were focused on growth, their govts were totalitarian and the people actually favor policies such as equal distribution, shorter working weeks and guarentee of income. Every economy is focussed on growth since the dawn of time (another error btw to link this purely to capitalism). Complete socialist / communist countries will always become totalitarian, because it places power into the hands of few, and centralised power does not bring the best into us human beings. And finally: ofcourse everyone wants short workweeks and income guarentees. What nobody knows answering that question is the actual reality that comes with it. Finally: the one argument that kills this entire movement: who is going to decide what the world should look like, and what society should be forced to align with? To think that you can correctly design society with all its needs, complexities, developments, etc. is just arrrogant, and worrying at least

[@ytvc6039]

you clearly stated that you have no clue about socialism and communism? they are the most democratic systems ever. on the other hand you have the least democratic system, capitalism, where the richest 1% decides everything.

[@hex2637]

His "communist ideas" aren't camouflaged by climate action. Post capitalism and the abandonment of excess and inequality is quite simply the most realistic, humanistic and moral way to save our planet and humanity, as many researchers have concluded. Also please read his peer reviewed works on colonialism and exploitation. The man is not pulling these statements out of thin air, but has evidence to back them up. I recommend his paper "Capitalism and extreme poverty: A global analysis of real wages, human height, and mortality since the long 16th century".

[@hex2637]

On your last statement: society should be designed around the needs of the people, essential sectors should be democratically controlled.

[@HealingLifeKwikly]

"First, his DeGrowth movement is just anotther attempt to propose the Communist framing of K. Marx. For example: the rich get rich only at the expense of the poor." The facts on the ground prove that he is right: Capitalism has always and everywhere only expanded itself by stealing land, looting resources from less powerful nations and people, enslaving people, overcharging customers, underpaying workers, and destroying the Earth while not paying the costs of that destruction. I suggest reading his book The Divide, which documents chapter and verse how wealthy nations rigged the modern global economy to be a system for giving rich countries unfair advantages so they can exploit "developing" countries and drain trillions of dollars in wealth per year from them. The developing countries created fairer economic systems in the 1960s and 1970s, and conditions there were rapidly improving until the wealthy nations stopped them, and used their coercive power to force the developing nations back into being exploited unfairly. No one has to ever read Karl Marx--just read the history of the endemic exploitation of the have nots by the haves under capitalism. The broader point of course is that a highly industrialized civilization and consumerist lifestyles for 8 billion people are flatly incompatible with Earth's limits and the laws of nature.

[@DavidKlausa]

"He states that there is no empirical evidence at all to link GDP growth per capita to individual wellbeing." I take your point: as Steven Pinker points out, living standards have risen dramatically in the last century. However, that is not the same as the economy needing to grow a couple percent every year, into the future indefinitely, as is expected by financial markets. Also, human wellbeing must be weighed against the wellbeing of everything else inhabiting the planet. If our wellbeing comes at their expense, it is only temporary.