If they can’t beat it, they will co-opt it

How the Ruling Class might weaponize Degrowth

The conversation around degrowth is no longer confined to academic journals and ecological circles. As the climate crisis deepens and the failures of endless growth become impossible to ignore, this once-fringe concept is entering the mainstream. And with that shift comes a familiar danger. The greatest threat to any radical idea is not always outright rejection; it is the prospect of being absorbed, hollowed out, and weaponized by the very power structures it seeks to dismantle, because the potential for the capitalist ruling class to co-opt degrowth is not a distant hypothetical.

At its heart, degrowth is a profoundly democratic and egalitarian proposition. The goal is to shift our collective focus from the accumulation of stuff, to the flourishing of human well-being and ecological stability. This vision is inherently antagonistic to a system built on perpetual expansion, profit maximization, and the concentration of power. It suggests that the solution to our crisis is a move beyond a “greener form of capitalism”.

Yet capitalism has a remarkable track record of digesting its critics. It takes the language of dissent, strips it of its revolutionary content, and repackages it as a new market niche, a public relations strategy, or worse, a justification for further exploitation. We must therefore be clear-eyed about how this process of co-optation could unfold for degrowth.

Imagine a future where the language of limits is expertly detached from the principle of justice. The concept of “doing with less” is a powerful one, but in the wrong hands, it becomes a moral cudgel. We could easily see a new era of austerity. The call for reduced material throughput could be twisted into a rationale for slashing public services, defunding healthcare, and dismantling social safety nets. The narrative would be insidious and simple: we all must make sacrifices for the planet. But the sacrifices would, as always, be demanded from the general population. The biggest consumers of energy per capita, along with the networks of production, distribution, and consumption that support this ever-growing energy level, will continue unabated, while the public is lectured about their thermostat settings and dietary choices. This would not be degrowth; it would be class war waged with an ecological vocabulary.

Simultaneously, we already see the seeds of another form of co-optation taking root in the fertile soil of consumer culture. Degrowth could effortlessly morph into a luxurious lifestyle brand for the affluent, a phenomenon we might call boutique degrowth. This is where the radical critique of consumerism becomes a new form of conspicuous consumption. It looks like week-long silent retreats at five-star eco-resorts, and artisanal, minimalist living as a curated aesthetic. This version of living with less is, in fact, a way for the elite to spend more while feeling virtuous. It transforms a collective political project into an individualistic consumer identity, effectively neutralizing its transformative potential. It makes degrowth seem like an elitist, sanctimonious pursuit, effectively alienating the very working classes who should be at the center of a just transition.

Then there is techno-optimism, which could absorb degrowth’s diagnosis while utterly rejecting its prescription. This strategy acknowledges the real problems of ecological collapse and resource depletion but insists that the answer lies not in downscaling, but in a miraculous, technology-driven escape. The narrative is seductive: we do not need to degrow, we simply need to innovate our way out of the crisis with speculative carbon capture technologies and other unproven silver bullets, is simply green growth in disguise. A delay tactic that reinforces faith in the market and the genius of Silicon Valley. By centralizing power in the hands of tech oligarchs, business-as-usual continues indefinitely under the borrowed banner of ecological concern.

Perhaps the most sinister weaponization of all would be a revival of Malthusian logic in a new, green guise. By focusing exclusively on the “less” in degrowth and ignoring the “better,” the concept could be twisted into a justification for eco-authoritarianism and xenophobia. The conversation would shift from overconsumption to overpopulation. The problem would no longer be the billionaires and their industrial empires, but the poor, the marginalized, and the immigrant. This narrative, steeped in a long history of racism and eugenics, would pit the working classes of the world against each other, arguing that we must limit immigration and control the reproductive rights of the “unfit” to achieve ecological balance. This grotesque distortion would not only betray every principle of degrowth but would also serve as a perfect smokescreen, deflecting blame from the colossal footprint of the rich to the comparatively minuscule footprint of the poor.

So how do we defend the radical core of this idea? The answer lies in relentless clarity and a commitment to its foundational principles. The defense against co-optation is to make the true meaning of degrowth impossible to ignore.

First and foremost, we must anchor the conversation in equity. Any discussion of consuming less must immediately be followed by the question: less for whom? The answer must always be that the heaviest burdens fall on the wealthiest shoulders. Degrowth is about dismantling the luxury consumption of the top ten percent and abolishing the superfluous production that defines late capitalism, from planned obsolescence to the sprawling advertising industry. It is explicitly not about reducing essential public services or the consumption of those already struggling to meet their needs.

Furthermore, we must constantly emphasize that degrowth is a systemic project, not a personal lifestyle choice. While our individual actions matter, the change required is structural. It is about reorienting our entire economy away from the goal of GDP growth and toward the goals of human well-being and ecological regeneration. This involves democratizing the economy, fostering community-owned cooperatives, and protecting the commons from enclosure. It is a political struggle for control over our collective future, not a consumer decision about which brand of shampoo to buy. There are concrete examples for all of this already in effect too. In Wales, there’s the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act that was implemented in 2015. Since 1989, in Porto Alegre, Brazil, citizens directly allocate portions of the municipal budget each year. And in 2017, the people of New Zealand pushed to get the Whanganui River full legal personhood in order to protect it as commons.

Finally, we must speak of degrowth not as a narrative of scarcity, but as a vision of abundance in what truly matters. A degrowth society would be one where we have less fast fashion and more free time, less industrial waste and more robust public parks, less mindless work and more meaningful care for our communities. It is about flourishing together within the generous limits of a living planet.

The path forward is fraught. The forces of co-optation are sophisticated and powerful. But by holding fast to the principles of democracy, equity, and ecological sanity, we can ensure that degrowth remains a vision of liberation, not just another tool for oppression. The battle is not just over whether we accept ecological limits, but over who tells the story of those limits, and who gets to design the world that comes after.

Photo: : Darren Cullen at Brandalism

---