The degrowth movement is the darling of global elites. I’ve seen it pop up on Xitter, as a force for good, more times that I would like to. It’s pushed by think tanks and socialist intellectuals, not to mention, institutions like the World Economic Forum. It’s framed as the solution to a climate crisis that, frankly, seems more like a convenient excuse for reshaping society. Degrowth advocates tell us that shrinking our economies is the only way to prevent ecological disaster, and to make things more equal for everyone on the planet. But beneath the polished language of sustainability and equality lies a different outcome: social control, wealth redistribution, and the consolidation of power into the hands of the few.
“The only thing that is important for the future of the world is the economic progress of the poor. Capitalism has been the only system that has raised the living standards of the poor.“
Thomas Sowell
This is not really about saving the planet, but it will restructure the world to favor a two-tier society. The wealthy elites keep their luxuries (insert photo of Bill Gates waterfront property/the Davos jet fleet), while the rest of us are left to “live simply,” denied the freedoms and opportunities that economic growth has always offered. The ability to improve our own lives, through our own motivations and efforts and to provide a greater life for our families and further generations.
Whilst our current form of capitalism is certainly not perfect, and not without legitimate criticism, the alternative to freedom, is slavery.
A Neo-Marxist Daydream?
The degrowth movement has packaged itself as the virtuous answer to environmental issues. The core idea? Stop chasing economic growth, cut consumption, and everything will magically balance out. Growth, they claim, is a relic of a destructive past (also obviously a white adjacent criticism), a model that’s ruining the planet and society. Instead, we should downsize, redistribute, and live in harmony with nature. In other words: shrink to survive. But here’s my issue with this, while this sounds idealistic, what we’re really dealing with is a revival of neo-Marxist ideas, dressed up in green rhetoric. Watermelon communism, if you will. Green on the outside and red on the inside.
At first glance, degrowth looks like an altruistic call to sacrifice for the greater good. But dig deeper, and you find that it’s less about ecology and more about wealth redistribution and centralized control. This isn’t some innocent grassroots movement, it’s being pushed from the top down by liberal aligned institutions. The message is simple: “We’ve got to control economies and resources to save the world.” How convenient for those already holding the levers of power.
Degrowth proponents argue that “simple living” is the way forward, while casting economic growth as the villain. But economic growth has driven technological innovation, raised living standards for countless billions of people, and expanded human potential. The elites know this but conveniently overlook it, because degrowth benefits them. By convincing the masses that growth is bad, they sidestep any challenge to their own wealth and privilege.
“The concept of degrowth, if implemented, would concentrate control in the hands of a select few who get to decide how resources are shared and who suffers the consequences.“
Eric Heymann
The romanticism surrounding degrowth ignores its core reality: those at the top would dictate what this “simple life” looks like for the rest of us. In practice, it’s not about saving the planet, it’s about entrenching power. The same elites who call for degrowth have no intention of giving up their private jets, five-star dinners, or beachfront mansions. Instead, they want to control the terms of our existence while keeping their lifestyles untouched. That it is a utopian vision is not up for question, but one man’s utopia is another’s dystopia, and the only way to ensure total compliance is violent and coercive authoritarianism.
What I find more insidious, is that the degrowth mindset doesn’t accept that there is a possibility of growth being an infinite proposal. Even within our own solar system there lies the material resources to fund the expansion of the human race far beyond where we are now. Moreso, human capital, our own ingenuity and intelligence, is the greatest resource we have. The more humans we have, the higher the likelihood of the next Einstein or Hawking to push the boundaries of science and human achievement.
A Two-Tier Society
The economic impacts of degrowth are predictably devastating, particularly for the middle and working classes. Growth isn’t just a figure on a chart; it’s the engine of technological progress, job creation, and societal improvement. A world without growth is a world without innovation, one where the energy, healthcare, and technological sectors collapse under the weight of stagnation. But what’s even worse is how the degrowth agenda would split society into two distinct tiers.
In a degrowth future, the elites would maintain their wealth and access to advanced technologies, while the rest of us are forced to downsize, both literally and figuratively. We already see this creeping in with talk of car sharing, reducing meat consumption, and the possibility of energy rationing determined by what it is being used for. Think about the real consequences: industries that rely on continuous innovation and investment, like tech and healthcare, would shrivel. Job creation would grind to a halt, and with it, social mobility. Wealth redistribution, the supposed backbone of degrowth, does little to level the playing field. It simply ensures that a select few hold all the resources (they need to in order to be able to “distribute” it), while the majority must live in a carefully managed system designed to limit freedom and opportunity.
“The record of history is absolutely crystal clear: there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.“
Milton Friedman
In practice, the push for sustainability isn’t about fairness, it’s about keeping people dependent on state support and preventing any real progress from happening. The people at the top are never the ones who suffer in these systems. They continue to live comfortably, untouched by the policies they promote for everyone else. Degrowth, at its heart, is an economic regression that benefits those who already have the most.
This call to limit consumption and halt technological advances leaves us vulnerable to increased dependence on centralized control. Imagine a society where there’s no new innovation in healthcare because growth is frowned upon. That’s the real outcome of this movement: a society in which those with resources live comfortably, and those without are stuck in perpetual reliance on state-sanctioned “sufficiency.”
The Isolation of Men
While degrowth presents itself as an economic policy, its implications go beyond finance, it’s about reshaping society’s very fabric. A key element of this is the growing emphasis on guilt-based social control. The movement leans heavily on narratives that paint anyone questioning its aims as selfish or ignorant. It’s a form of soft coercion, where people are shamed into compliance under the guise of morality.
But this manipulation doesn’t stop with guilt. It extends into the isolation of men and the dismantling of traditional male spaces. Over the past few decades, male-only environments, where merit, competition, and independence were celebrated, have been systematically dismantled. The feminist movement has repeatedly called for equalisation of access to male only spaces and slowly, the ability for men to socialise as men, has dwindled away. It is no surprise then that the numbers of men who report mental health issues is on the rise and isolation is a driving factor in this.
Men traditionally thrive in hierarchical, merit-based environments, and are now increasingly isolated. As these spaces disappear, men are left without the structures that encourage independence, making them more susceptible to the guilt-driven, consensus-based social order that degrowth promotes. This starts in school and continues into the workplace, masculinity is demonised as a destructive force, positive role models for men are few and far between. Female dominated social hierarchies tend to operate through social approval and guilt, rewarding those who conform, and ostracizing those who don’t. Degrowth leans heavily on this dynamic, fostering a society where dissent is stifled in favor of compliance.
“Strength is not the absence of weakness; it’s the ability to confront it. Positive masculinity is about being responsible and strong in the face of adversity.”
Jordan Peterson
Leon Festinger, in his 1957 book, “The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance“, discusses the effects of forced compliance on a person. In his research he found that given two routes to ensuring compliance (carrot and stick), the carrot worked better, and worked better when in small doses. This nudging of behaviour is a slow process, it has been decades of erosion to get to where we are now, but I feel it is only accelerating. The cognitive dissonance aspect of compliance arises when the difference in public compliance, versus private opinion or belief, is too great. The greater the gap between the two, the greater the dissonance the person will feel, the more likely it will be rejected. The smaller the nudge, the more likely that over time, the private opinion will change as well.
By weakening our traditional social structures and replacing them with guilt based control, degrowth creates a more docile, malleable population. It’s no accident that this coincides with the rise of collectivist narratives that favor the state or global institutions as the arbiters of “what’s right.” As men lose spaces that once allowed them to compete, bond, and foster independence, they become easier to control within a societal structure that discourages meritocracy and promotes conformity. The upside is that as the narrative increases in pace, the cognitive dissonance increases, and the chances of a concerted effort to push back, most likely by men, will increase.
Conclusion
Degrowth may sound like a noble pursuit on the surface, but beneath its eco-friendly façade lies a far more sinister agenda. It is not just about scaling back economies to prevent environmental damage—it is about cementing a two-tier society where wealth and power are concentrated at the top, and everyone else is left to make do with less. By stifling economic growth, the movement ensures that technological progress halts, jobs disappear, and social mobility is curtailed.
Moreover, degrowth’s psychological and social manipulation, especially in how it isolates men and dismantles spaces where merit and competition are valued, creates a population that is easier to control. This isn’t about saving the planet; it’s about reshaping society to favor the few, all while wrapping itself in the language of sustainability and justice.
Don’t buy into the happy idiot talk. Degrowth isn’t a path to equality or a healthier planet. It’s a path to social control, stifled innovation, and a society where the elites continue to thrive while the rest of us are forced to settle for less.
If you enjoyed this article, feel free to tip me on Bitcoin Lightning. (click the icon)