Debating degrowth: A response to Jason Hickel

Break–Down Journal (SubStack) has published an interview with Jason Hickel (7 August 2025) with the subtitle ‘Degrowth is a gateway into socialist thought for the 21st century’. It was timed to celebrate the fifth anniversary of the publication of Hickel’s popular book Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World (2020). In something of a U-turn, in the recent interview Hickel claims that it is ‘incorrect’ to view degrowth as ‘a movement’. Rather he treats it like a single-issue campaign slogan – arguing that degrowth ‘does not have the capacity to achieve power and implement policies’. In short, he says:

Degrowth research shows that we can improve social outcomes with substantially less energy use, less material use, and less aggregate output. These are powerful insights and should be integrated into socialist paradigms. But also, this is just what would naturally happen during a democratic socialist transformation.

As such, he takes a one-eyed TINA (There is No Alternative) position arguing for an ecosocialist transformation. Hickel not only narrows the concept of degrowth to a quasi-science of simple reduction in terms of energy and resource use. He also makes degrowth supporters cannon fodder for a transformation that is (eco)socialist. He believes that ‘only’ a united ‘mass-based party can achieve’ such a transformation, positioning himself as an ecosocialist of the democratic socialist leaders-and-followers kind, i.e. seeking to take state power to institute ecosocialism.

We take issue with his perception and analysis of degrowth on several counts, as we develop further here. Our text is an invitation for dialogue and debate towards a common understanding of ‘degrowth’, its strengths, weaknesses and potential. 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.

The degrowth movement

First and foremost, we view degrowth not only as a theory but also as a movement. For more than 23 years, degrowth has been a very active and influential social, intellectual and political movement – first in France, and then in Spain, Italy, Belgium, Switzerland and Québec, before becoming international in 2008 with the organisation of the first degrowth conference. Yes, degrowth as a movement has very few resources and might appear weaker than its intellectual influence as an academic theory. However, ultimately, a movement has more potential for deep cultural transformation, also through practice, either individual or collective.

At stake here is transformation, which takes a movement, not mere words or theory. The degrowth movement has organised marches, demonstrations, political campaigns, conferences, seminars and practitioner workshops. Degrowth has elected representatives in several local and national political institutions including mayors and members of parliament. Degrowth has also attracted supporters through books, including Hickel’s own, and many more. This movement perspective on degrowth is highlighted in the curation and content of the recently published Routledge Handbook of Degrowth (2025) which provides evidence for the arguments we make here.

Degrowth is a movement in movement(s). It has connections and alliances with other movements, such as delinking movements, post-development and decolonial movements; eco-feminist movements; eco-village and transition networks; climate action and extinction rebellion movements; anarchist networks; and, of course, green, union, and leftist movements, including ecosocialist parties. Degrowth, as a movement, represents an international network, containing a diversity of networks, activities and activists. Some activists and advocates might feel relatively isolated yet are still influential in political parties; NGOs, local initiatives, political and public institutions, universities and research institutes and projects and even companies. Sometimes they use the degrowth slogan, sometimes not. Still, they show strong and coherent practices with shared values and understandings. And, inevitably, diversities and controversies, depending on the regional context or focus for example. In short, in contrast to Hickel, we argue that there is a degrowth movement.

‘What’s ‘degrowth’?

We criticise Hickel’s claim that degrowth is narrowly about minimising throughput and use of materials and energy, which we think also leads him to give a subordinate role to degrowth within ecosocialism. Degrowth goes much further than this economistic reductionist approach. It is an invitation to explore new imaginaries and ways of life, for instance, from work and technology, to democracy and property, which are eluded in Hickel’s position.

We are sympathetic to and skeptical of ecosocialism, especially because of its diversity of interpretations, practices and strategies. Within this broad church, we expect that many in the degrowth movement would probably find a most comfortable alliance with The First Ecosocialist International 2017. The latter advocates for a direct form of grassroots democracy based on horizontalism, autonomy, commoning and subsidiarity. This approach to ecosocialism is very distinct from the democratic economic planning approaches with whom Hickel seems to position himself. Such positions identify ‘the working class’ as the focal agent of transformation, centre on the state and so-called socialist bureaucratic planning, and refer to state and market-oriented policies. Of course, we need to engage with the ecosocialist movement but as a movement we also need to clarify which vision of ecosocialism is most compatible with degrowth principles and strategic directions.

We think Hickel misrepresents degrowth as a concept in a variety of ways. The role of degrowth for Hickel is to inform the all-important socialist transformation. Hickel’s essentially state-centred ecosocialist approach, which embodies hierarchical dynamics, contrasts with the substantially horizontally-organised and anti-state autonomy of the degrowth movement throughout its 23-year history. Hickel’s approach leads him to put ecosocialism on the throne with degrowth as an influential vassal. In contrast, many proponents of degrowth tend towards horizontalist and pluriversal perspectives, seeing degrowth as a network of networks, as a movement in movement(s). Hickel diminishes the meaning of degrowth in peculiarly economistic ways – derived from its eroded definition in the disciplinary contexts of ecological economics and heterodox economics. Yet, here’s the rub: degrowth is holistic. Degrowth thinking is replete with speculative thinking around rich, convivial and authentic postcapitalist futures. Degrowth is to growth as quality is to quantity. To collapse degrowth into quantitative shrinkage descriptors (as in the Hickel quote in the first paragraph above) mangles and distorts it.

Early degrowth proponents in France, stated categorically that ‘Even if infinite growth in a finite world were possible, consumption and productivism would still be absurd.’ As such, degrowth is anti-economistic. Degrowth celebrates postcapitalist imaginaries and strategies that respect principles, perspectives and practices that centre on the transformative, anarchist and utopian-socialist inspired political forms of the 21^st century. Think horizontalism, Holloway’s anti-power and Castoriadis on autonomy, which are central to degrowth practices and to other key movements of the 21^st century. These action-oriented and inclusionary principles illustrate that degrowth is, and must be, a movement.

It is totally incorrect for Hickel to say that degrowth ‘is not an anti-development position’. Degrowth (décroissance) emerged in 2002 as an activist movement when French protesters and intellectuals collaborated together in anti-development and anti-advertising movements. A key Ligne d’Horizon symposium illustrated this collaboration – the UNESCO Défaire le Développement Refaire le Monde (Deconstruct Development, Rebuild the World) conference, 28 February–3 March 2002. In other words, degrowth emerged in alliance with post-development discourse. Subsequently, the Degrowth: Platform for Convergence – proposed by participants in the Constitutional Convention of the Association of Objectors to Growth who gathered in Beaugency (France) on 19 September 2009 – argued for ‘an immediate exit from capitalism and productivism’, and for the essentially anti-imperial and delinking strategy of open (re)localisation of decision-making as the form of direct democracy.

Moreover, the current UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights argues that overcoming poverty worldwide is only feasible within degrowth directions. So, for Hickel to say that degrowth ‘is not targeted at developing countries’ is only correct in the limited sense that the rich must transform themselves and their practices in order to live simply, so that the under-developed and poor can simply live. This requires systemic, anti-capitalist and delinking strategies toward self-determination, and moving beyond imperialistic development. Degrowth embraces the challenge of learning from, as well as allying with, activists and advocates from the Global South, as shown by delinking activism at the recent 11^th International Degrowth Conference in Oslo, a position that we expect Hickel and other ecosocialists might share with us.

Negotiated and nuanced alliances respecting Global South sentiments are essential. Similarly, are degrowth alliances that recognise the Global East, ecofeminist insights, and much more. Simple data and analyses ‘proving’ unequal exchange have small roles to play in such politics, given that such dynamics are blatantly legible processes (except, seemingly, for economic theorists and privileged people supporting the status-quo). Rather, we need all-inclusive action where means match visions, following the ever-relevant leitmotif that ‘philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.’

Degrowth strategies

Another key charge that Hickel makes against degrowth is lack of organisation, policies and transitionary goals. Creating a transformation that will overcome the two great challenges that humanity faces right now – deep socio-political and economic inequities, and complex ecological unsustainabilities, of which climate change is just one symptom – is no easy task. Still, a plethora of works by various degrowth advocates over the last half-decade have outlined proposals, models and policies for strategic advances. For instance, take a look at Chapters 4 and 5 of Liegey and Nelson (2020) and contributions to the Routledge Handbook of Degrowth (2025). Still, many such as Herbert and Morris (2025), have pointed out that there is much more for degrowth to achieve in terms of developing strategies for transformation.

A horizontalist movement’s ambition is to alter relationships in the process of transformation, not simply as a result it. Strategically, this is a far more ambitious, complex and sophisticated task than the party-line approach favoured by Hickel. That party-line approach comes with the risk of killing the creativity we need. There is a risk that an authoritarian approach will block viable proposals and stifle the direct democracy that degrowth implies. In contrast, we try to prefigure direct democracy as a means, not simply an assumed end.

In fact, Hickel’s strategic position has gaps and contradictions. His arguments support what many in 21^st century movements – such as degrowth and anarchism – contend are outdated and weak strategies for transformation. Hickel wants workers to be central agents and sees strikes as powerful, even while he contradictorily acknowledges that unions have a strong tendency to co-option and self-interested demands. Instead, certain degrowth activists engage in prefiguration, i.e. creating real political and economic alternatives with the potential to lead to new ways of living (such as ZADs). Experimenting with direct democracy, deliberation, municipalism, commons and self-organisation in practice is celebrated by degrowth activists and advocates. Yes, we need dialogue with unions and with working classes. Yes, we need to develop more clarity in strategies and tactics. Still, as a horizontalist movement, degrowth faces different challenges and forms. We have a more sophisticated and grounded approach than strictly following the party line. We celebrate creativity and differences so degrowth principles are practised in customised ways across space and time.

Hickel doesn’t describe how workers and communities might contribute to decision-making. Instead, he gives privileged positions to workers and intellectual leaders to create our futures. We see direct democracy in terms of substantially new political structures, not a dominating party. His position is distant from ecofeminist, alter-globalisation, anti-work, and Global South delinking analyses and visions to which many degrowth advocates and activists subscribe. Horizontalist approaches view parties as essentially bourgeois institutions and advocate a form of postcapitalism beyond paid work and monetary carrots and sticks.

The analysis we have made here focuses on the detail of Hickel’s position. From a broader perspective, we agree with Hickel that the degrowth movement needs to engage with ecosocialism. Both degrowth and ecosocialist movements ‘contain tense, even contradictory, reformist and revolutionary factions, so much so that numerous activists in both ecosocialist and degrowth grassroots factions have more in common with one another than with the top-down vanguardist factions in either movement’. As ecosocialists and degrowthers, we need to carefully consider the differences between hierarchical and horizontalist approaches, to ecosocialism, and to degrowth. In contrast to Hickel’s democratic socialist position, our aim is to support movements and alliances based on a horizontalist view of degrowth and a horizontalist vision of eco-socialism.