Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.03 AVERAGE
4.03 AVERAGE
Man oh man, what a disappointment. Whereas there is a time and place for theory as a foundation in movement building, my takeaway is that Saitō is an amazing scholar and capable of philosophizing an ideal to death. I am always weary of a text where the author is constantly hedging their statements to their readership and anticipating blow-back, i.e., “this isn’t the usual Marxist read” and such. The protesting too much red flag, but I kept reading. A satisfying text starts with a hypothesis and an investigation and is self aware of its own contradictions and possible debunking. Saitō seems to have had a very clear landing strip, a thing he wanted to very firmly claim, and then worked his way backwards to cherry-pick the bits of Marxism that works best for him. To add to the issue, I do wonder which parts were just poor translation from his original text, which is of course not the author’s fault. Do I deeply hate capitalism? Yes. Do I remain open to hearing how degrowth communism provides a dramatic shift towards a more sustainable world? Also yes. Did this text make such ideas seem possible? Not at all. Just a disappointing experience overall.
informative
informative
inspiring
slow-paced
slow-paced
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
informative
inspiring
fast-paced
informative
medium-paced
Perfectly solid. For a rough critique: there are two tracks running through the book: info on degrowth communism & why it's necessary, and an argument why Marx's thought and works support degrowth. I found myself persuaded that degrowth and Marx are not opposed, but I was not persuaded of why I should care. I think an argument for why degrowth aligns with leftism need not rely so heavily on its compatibility with Marx's writings in particular.
This is a book that is part of a larger conversation.
I am lucky that I have read most of the works mentioned, but if I hadn't, I do wonder how much I would have been able to get from this writing. Furthermore, for a book centered around such a strong idea, big terms weren't defined to the level I was expecting (notably capitalism). There are separate books for "what about Stalin?" etc., but Saito acknowledges the problem only briefly and does not take the opportunity to point to other resources, like I was hoping he would do.
This is a well-reasoned, forceful call for political action. That being said, I wish Saito had gone into more detail about what degrowth communism might look like if everyone actually adopted it, not just what it takes to get there. It feels like he restates other people's arguments and adds a single line -- an important line, but he could have gone on.
Emotionally, this was great. If I am being critical, I wanted more.
I am lucky that I have read most of the works mentioned, but if I hadn't, I do wonder how much I would have been able to get from this writing. Furthermore, for a book centered around such a strong idea, big terms weren't defined to the level I was expecting (notably capitalism). There are separate books for "what about Stalin?" etc., but Saito acknowledges the problem only briefly and does not take the opportunity to point to other resources, like I was hoping he would do.
This is a well-reasoned, forceful call for political action. That being said, I wish Saito had gone into more detail about what degrowth communism might look like if everyone actually adopted it, not just what it takes to get there. It feels like he restates other people's arguments and adds a single line -- an important line, but he could have gone on.
Emotionally, this was great. If I am being critical, I wanted more.
okay. i need to take a deep breath. it took me three days to get through this book. ive seen glowing reviews and highly critical ones, all from comrades who i consider extremely conscious and considerate people. unfortunately i have to fall on the more critical side. when i heard that saitou is a marxist, i was actually very excited because marxist thought never goes mainstream like this. over half a million people have read slow down! half a million people are interested in socialism! thats fantastic!
but then i actually read it. i wont mince words: if youre a socialist/marxist/communist who doesnt defend ANY socialist state, youre not. ive been a marxist leninist for almost 20 years at this point and what convinced me was actually reading about the success of socialism in cuba and the soviet union. utopian daydreams mean nothing. why would you argue for socialism yet insist that every single socialist state did it wrong? dont you understand how stupid that makes you look? on top of that, you cant really believe in socialism if youre unwilling to at least critically support those workers who were brave enough to fight for it. at a minimum, its disrespectful. mostly it doesnt make any sense to me why you would want to fight for something you claim has never actually worked in any scenario ever and on top of that was despotic and evil and oppressive. ok why would i even be a socialist then?? like lmfao
i appreciate saitou insisting that those who will be (ARE) most heavily affected by climate change are third world people. i didnt miss the irony of listening to this book on my walk to work during a drought, massive forest fires, and unseasonably warm weather in early spring. brazil is facing a climate catastrophe and lula keeps pretending like he isnt the president. his declarations mean nothing if he doesnt enact the long forgotten promise of land reform--at a minimum! but saitou believes any action the government takes is a slippery slope to authoritarianism. even progressive taxation schemes will give the state too much power.
and on some level i agree with him. there is no reason for a capitalist state to have this much power. the capitalist state holds a monopoly on violence while also refusing to properly allocate resources. i dont trust capitalist states with actually addressing social problems. plus, every state has the funds to do something about social issues. the logic of capitalism dictates that funding social programs is a waste of time, however, which is why reform is impossible. you cant reform capitalism and we're very much past the stage where entertaining that idea even makes sense. whatever action needs to be taken about climate change needs to be decisive and immediate.
saitou knows this. he knows capitalism REFUSES long term planning in favor of short term profit. he actually goes to great lengths to demonstrate just how inhumane capitalism is, to great effect, yet his solution on how to transition to communism is little more than wishful thinking. saitou never once discusses revolution as the solution. in fact he does a lot of rhetorical side stepping when discussing marx in particular. i actually have to get this out of the way first to explain what i mean, but the way saitou discusses marx is.....peculiar. he talks about him as a christian would of jesus christ. marxs works are not dogma! they are not tomes reclaimed from the heavens to be followed to the letter! treating marx as such completely misses the point of marxism.
rejecting marxs earlier works is also a mistake, one that saitou insists is actually the 'correct' way to interpret marx. in fact all marxists of the 20th and 21st century thus far are simply doing it wrong. none of us see marx as being in tune with the environment, even ecomarxists! wow, thank you kohei saitou, i cant believe billions of people are so dumb. thank you for providing me with the Right Way to read marx.
and its obvious that saitou knows his marx! his analyses of capitalism and its effects on the environment and the third world are only possible with a solid grasp of marxist theory. my issue is that he pretends marx simply never talked about revolution in his later work. this is so false as to be delusional. saitou implies early marxs revolutionary tendencies were due to a 'progressive' and eurocentric view of history that required all states to go through capitalism on the route to socialism. we know this isnt true because 1. marx reevaluated it and was like oh yeah thats fucking stupid and 2. THE SOVIET UNION.
this is the fucking problem with academic marxists! marx HAS to be anti revolution in his later years because if he isnt you have to accept that the soviet union was marxs dream manifest. as a marxist you can 1. dismiss the soviet unions claims to True Socialism 2. say it was good at first but stalin ruined it (and i guess pretend it didnt exist after he died?) or 3. be a normal fucking person about it and acknowledge that was what socialism looked like based on the conditions available in 1917 russia. early marx denies the possibility of a soviet union but later marx DOES NOT. saitou plays ignorant and instead insists marx meant that russia could become communist (he avoids the term socialist throughout, which ill get to) simply by organizing around the mirs.
idk if saitou fucking knows this but capitalism is incredibly violent and willing to enact that violence on literally ANY social movement. capitalism sends paramilitaries to shoot striking factory workers. right now we are witnessing israel committing open genocide on both palestine and lebanon. did those people simply not want to be free badly enough? saitou implies you just have to want communism badly enough and itll happen, as if large scale social movements dont require much more than simple discussion. dont get me wrong, the discussions are vital to class consciousness as well. in fact, this is a major criticism i have of lula insisting on not opening up dialogues with the working class (something he literally promised in his campaign in 2022!!!).
he talks about the zapatistas as if they also dont engage in guerilla warfare in order to preserve their way of life. saitou acts like all social movements he likes are peaceful because acknowledging that fight necessitates acknowledging class struggle, which is curiously absent from this entire book. i dont understand how you can be a marxist and not talk about class struggle AT ALL? like....AT ALL???? he goes so far as to subtly deny the importance of workers in general while talking about barcelonas fearless city movement. their manifesto was drafted by 'ordinary residents' instead of 'experts and workers.' hello???? do you even hear yourself?????
im getting extremely worked up about this book because i promise i went in with an open mind. i promise that there are parts i find engaging and worth consideration, and i actually believe degrowth is a viable and necessary strategy. saitous points about deciding what kind of world we want to live in is INCREDIBLY important. we CAN live on a planet that is 3C hotter but what kind of existence would that be, especially if we CAN prevent that?
the start of the book was honestly my favorite part and quite chilling. he also expresses the simple reality that countries like brazil will never be able to develop into a first world country which helps bolster the argument for socialism. saitou kind of ignores the word socialism because communism is the true stateless society and i think hes got more in common with anarchists than marxists on that front. id love to see society go from capitalism to communism but idk. if youve gotten this far in this review i think you must know how utopian that sounds. better people than i have explained it.
the communism label also seems to hide his open disdain for socialism. he keeps referring to 'climate maoism' and fucking hates chinas zero covid policy. in the next sentence he admits bolsonaro allowed covid to massacre indigenous people to facilitate illegal mining in the amazon. while china was a little overzealous, i can tell you which approach i prefer. but this is me relinquishing my freedom to an evil state that takes action while also curtailing my freedom! the solution is for everyone to hold hands and help each other (: while im not completely on board with the chinese model of socialism, my distaste for the term 'climate maoism' makes me think saitous issues stem from a misunderstanding and hatred of socialism. he couldve gone with climate fascism but chose to name it after maoism for no reason other than that hes anticommunist.
perhaps thats a strong term but again, why would you advocate for communism while also openly disdaining all attempts to establish it that went beyond a commune? why not look at historical examples of where socialist states were successful in addressing climate change? why not criticize the soviet unions productivism in a way that invokes actual examples and from the perspective of someone who wished for the success of socialism?
i dont know. i think this would be more of a 2.5 than a straight up 2 but im feeling uncharitable today. im degrowthing your score.
but then i actually read it. i wont mince words: if youre a socialist/marxist/communist who doesnt defend ANY socialist state, youre not. ive been a marxist leninist for almost 20 years at this point and what convinced me was actually reading about the success of socialism in cuba and the soviet union. utopian daydreams mean nothing. why would you argue for socialism yet insist that every single socialist state did it wrong? dont you understand how stupid that makes you look? on top of that, you cant really believe in socialism if youre unwilling to at least critically support those workers who were brave enough to fight for it. at a minimum, its disrespectful. mostly it doesnt make any sense to me why you would want to fight for something you claim has never actually worked in any scenario ever and on top of that was despotic and evil and oppressive. ok why would i even be a socialist then?? like lmfao
i appreciate saitou insisting that those who will be (ARE) most heavily affected by climate change are third world people. i didnt miss the irony of listening to this book on my walk to work during a drought, massive forest fires, and unseasonably warm weather in early spring. brazil is facing a climate catastrophe and lula keeps pretending like he isnt the president. his declarations mean nothing if he doesnt enact the long forgotten promise of land reform--at a minimum! but saitou believes any action the government takes is a slippery slope to authoritarianism. even progressive taxation schemes will give the state too much power.
and on some level i agree with him. there is no reason for a capitalist state to have this much power. the capitalist state holds a monopoly on violence while also refusing to properly allocate resources. i dont trust capitalist states with actually addressing social problems. plus, every state has the funds to do something about social issues. the logic of capitalism dictates that funding social programs is a waste of time, however, which is why reform is impossible. you cant reform capitalism and we're very much past the stage where entertaining that idea even makes sense. whatever action needs to be taken about climate change needs to be decisive and immediate.
saitou knows this. he knows capitalism REFUSES long term planning in favor of short term profit. he actually goes to great lengths to demonstrate just how inhumane capitalism is, to great effect, yet his solution on how to transition to communism is little more than wishful thinking. saitou never once discusses revolution as the solution. in fact he does a lot of rhetorical side stepping when discussing marx in particular. i actually have to get this out of the way first to explain what i mean, but the way saitou discusses marx is.....peculiar. he talks about him as a christian would of jesus christ. marxs works are not dogma! they are not tomes reclaimed from the heavens to be followed to the letter! treating marx as such completely misses the point of marxism.
rejecting marxs earlier works is also a mistake, one that saitou insists is actually the 'correct' way to interpret marx. in fact all marxists of the 20th and 21st century thus far are simply doing it wrong. none of us see marx as being in tune with the environment, even ecomarxists! wow, thank you kohei saitou, i cant believe billions of people are so dumb. thank you for providing me with the Right Way to read marx.
and its obvious that saitou knows his marx! his analyses of capitalism and its effects on the environment and the third world are only possible with a solid grasp of marxist theory. my issue is that he pretends marx simply never talked about revolution in his later work. this is so false as to be delusional. saitou implies early marxs revolutionary tendencies were due to a 'progressive' and eurocentric view of history that required all states to go through capitalism on the route to socialism. we know this isnt true because 1. marx reevaluated it and was like oh yeah thats fucking stupid and 2. THE SOVIET UNION.
this is the fucking problem with academic marxists! marx HAS to be anti revolution in his later years because if he isnt you have to accept that the soviet union was marxs dream manifest. as a marxist you can 1. dismiss the soviet unions claims to True Socialism 2. say it was good at first but stalin ruined it (and i guess pretend it didnt exist after he died?) or 3. be a normal fucking person about it and acknowledge that was what socialism looked like based on the conditions available in 1917 russia. early marx denies the possibility of a soviet union but later marx DOES NOT. saitou plays ignorant and instead insists marx meant that russia could become communist (he avoids the term socialist throughout, which ill get to) simply by organizing around the mirs.
idk if saitou fucking knows this but capitalism is incredibly violent and willing to enact that violence on literally ANY social movement. capitalism sends paramilitaries to shoot striking factory workers. right now we are witnessing israel committing open genocide on both palestine and lebanon. did those people simply not want to be free badly enough? saitou implies you just have to want communism badly enough and itll happen, as if large scale social movements dont require much more than simple discussion. dont get me wrong, the discussions are vital to class consciousness as well. in fact, this is a major criticism i have of lula insisting on not opening up dialogues with the working class (something he literally promised in his campaign in 2022!!!).
he talks about the zapatistas as if they also dont engage in guerilla warfare in order to preserve their way of life. saitou acts like all social movements he likes are peaceful because acknowledging that fight necessitates acknowledging class struggle, which is curiously absent from this entire book. i dont understand how you can be a marxist and not talk about class struggle AT ALL? like....AT ALL???? he goes so far as to subtly deny the importance of workers in general while talking about barcelonas fearless city movement. their manifesto was drafted by 'ordinary residents' instead of 'experts and workers.' hello???? do you even hear yourself?????
im getting extremely worked up about this book because i promise i went in with an open mind. i promise that there are parts i find engaging and worth consideration, and i actually believe degrowth is a viable and necessary strategy. saitous points about deciding what kind of world we want to live in is INCREDIBLY important. we CAN live on a planet that is 3C hotter but what kind of existence would that be, especially if we CAN prevent that?
the start of the book was honestly my favorite part and quite chilling. he also expresses the simple reality that countries like brazil will never be able to develop into a first world country which helps bolster the argument for socialism. saitou kind of ignores the word socialism because communism is the true stateless society and i think hes got more in common with anarchists than marxists on that front. id love to see society go from capitalism to communism but idk. if youve gotten this far in this review i think you must know how utopian that sounds. better people than i have explained it.
the communism label also seems to hide his open disdain for socialism. he keeps referring to 'climate maoism' and fucking hates chinas zero covid policy. in the next sentence he admits bolsonaro allowed covid to massacre indigenous people to facilitate illegal mining in the amazon. while china was a little overzealous, i can tell you which approach i prefer. but this is me relinquishing my freedom to an evil state that takes action while also curtailing my freedom! the solution is for everyone to hold hands and help each other (: while im not completely on board with the chinese model of socialism, my distaste for the term 'climate maoism' makes me think saitous issues stem from a misunderstanding and hatred of socialism. he couldve gone with climate fascism but chose to name it after maoism for no reason other than that hes anticommunist.
perhaps thats a strong term but again, why would you advocate for communism while also openly disdaining all attempts to establish it that went beyond a commune? why not look at historical examples of where socialist states were successful in addressing climate change? why not criticize the soviet unions productivism in a way that invokes actual examples and from the perspective of someone who wished for the success of socialism?
i dont know. i think this would be more of a 2.5 than a straight up 2 but im feeling uncharitable today. im degrowthing your score.
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
Life changing.