Gene asks: what is Paech's strategy how to get to this post growth economy in which we can no longer take vacation flights to Italy but joyfully plant radishes instead.
Paech says, basically, we do not have to try to get there but we will get there whether we want it or not -- because economic growth will no longer be possible and break down within the next decade or so. It is not a matter of wanting to plant food gardens or repair bicycles, but this will be a necessity. Those who know this already now have the obligation to tell the truth to those who cannot imagine life fulfillment other than being consumers, or who do not think someone with a University degree should be required to do manual labor to produce the things they need. Paech is critical of the modern consumer and he thinks their ideas of happiness are socially constructed, they are the chains tying them to the capitalist system. Now is the best time to practice being happy without being able to fly to Italy or New York, and it is very much possible, there is nothing in our human nature which makes it necessary to fly to Italy or New York. I think Paech also means: if we are willing to liberate ourselves of the consumerist fetish we are able to take the appropriately drastic measures to slow carbon emissions quickly enough to prevent the worst climate catastrophe. He does not stress this because he does not think the masses can be motivated by the threat of future catastrophe. Perhaps a minority will change their lifestyles because of this, and then they will discover how happy they can be in this simplicity, and then this will catch on widely. Paech can point to many examples where people do this already, voluntarry simplicity, transition towns, slow food etc. Paech enumerates drastic institutional changes, shutting down 50% of industry which is unnecessary, cutting wage labor to 20 hours per week, abolishing the fractional reserve system and introducing local currencies with negative interest rates, minimum and maximum incomes. These changes allow people to break through their isolation and rat race, live in communities and trade informally, home grown tomatoes against energy from your solar panel etc. This assumes the masses win against capitalist interests using democracy, maybe helped by class betrayal by many capitalists although Paech does not use this language. There are indeed countries in which climate protection is not a partisan issue but almost everybody in parliament supports it. Denmark has the most ambitious energy policy of the world which is supported by 99 out of 100 representatives in parliament, and Denmark is one of the happiest countries in the world despite high energy prices. Also in Germany the Energiewende is very popular. Paech thinks the Energiewende can be derailed by the illusion that growth is necessary and sustainable growth is possible. If the masses understand that this is an illusion they will pragmatically adjust to the lower levels of consumption because they understand how important this is. They will discover that this necessity gives them more fulfilled lives than consuming more and more stuff and on top of this buying antidepressants because the consumption of stuff does not give them what they need. Paech is critical of the masses because he thinks the masses can learn from this criticism and the masses have agency, democracy is not a sham but it is capable of radical changes. I hope I represent Paech correctly while trying to fill in the concept of class which Paech leaves out. It seems, judging fromm the applause to his most radical pronouncemennts that he represents the views of a good part of student movement in Germany and Austria. To someone living in the USA his ideas how to get these drastic changess may sound like a phantasy, because here in Utah where I live the capitalists have clearly won the class struggle and control the media and kept the masses uneducated, and it is not obvious how tenuous their position really is. In Europe, Latin America, China the situation is not as clear cut. A successful democratic climate protection culture and politics is possible, even if the chances are not very high. The role of us in the US is to prevent our government from subverting and bombing them when they try to go this route. Hans G Ehrbar _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
