De-Growth for the Few

Debates between socialists and ecosocialists tend to center around the idea of de-growth; to the old left it sounds like austerity and a difficult sell to working folks. Ecosocialists tend to argue it isn't austere, it's frugal, it's responsible, it's recognizing planetary boundaries and limits. And they are both right. But De-growth needn't be either /or. Why couldn't we demand austerity for the few and increased bounty for the many? In an Age of Inequality rivaling the Gilded Age, it shouldn't be too difficult to sell a little leveling. In capitalist terms, this means a low or negative rate of GDP,(reduced through-puts), it means productivity without a lot of profit. It's good old re-distribution in the name of saving the biosphere and hey, if it does a little social engineering, guess what, every policy is social engineering. At the moment, climate activists are trying to sell a program of "millions of new jobs" and "all our energy produced by renewables". People are wary of change, assuming they will, as usual, get the short end. But most people have no idea of HOW MUCH the really rich have, how much of the pool of resources they hog, how much they have to share. Despite all the propaganda to the contrary, economics is a zero sum game. All the stuff you don't have, they have. If you had your share of the social product, you wouldn't have to work so much, we wouldn't need "millions of jobs". Besides, most jobs are bullshit and robots can do much of the rest. You can relax, just like the rich do now. When I say "the rich" I mean of course a broad continuim. Rich is relative, just like poor. But with all of today's computing power it shouldn't be too tough to come up with a median (I've seen one estimate of $17,600, which I lived on for years). One that is sustainable. And so far all I have described is a transition out of hyper-consumerist US capitalism, although much would apply to other modern industrialized economies. The questions of consumption and development- how much is sustainable? How will production and allocation goals be decided? etc. these are all down the road. The task at the moment is stopping the train from plunging off the cliff. Early 20th century Marxism naturally relied on ever-increasing productivity as a way to a better life for the masses. We now know that Marx understood that earth systems had a "metabolism" that required attention but in the Cold War race it was all about maximizing extraction to provide for material needs (and wants). Now we understand the ecological limits and must adapt our narratives.