(1) It's not only that one right-wing ideologue who argues that way. Also some feminists do, and I can actually see their point very well. I've streamlined this into an argument that I call The Wrong Outcome -argument. It goes something like this:

Let's imagine that we are leftist, green and feminist in our politics. We would prefer to have a society that is generally much more equal in distribution of wealth, positions and power than current society is. It should also be generally less materialistic.

Let's imagine that we recommend voluntary downshifting, voluntary simplicity or something like that as a means to achieve this society. Now I'm perfectly aware that this might seem tempting from individual point of view. The problem is that rather than bringing about more equal and less materialistic society, it just reinstates the old one.

Who are the individuals who would be likely to downshift, out of their dear free will? They would mostly not be the people who value competition, hierarchy and wealth. So these voluntary measures would do nothing to change the manifest unequality. All power would still be in the wrong hands.

This is The Wrong Outcome Argument. Given our leftist, green and feminist preferences, we are recommending something that frustrates any such goals. Leftist diagnosis of this situation in totally clear. We don't need downshifting, that weakens the weak, we need to cut down profits and privileges of the powerfull.

I think that the broadly countercultural ideas such as downshifting signal that the left has lost it's nerve, and many progressives have lost their faith in collective political mobilisation. Many of us feel that we are "better than the mainstream", but this also means that we have decided to pursue our own life-projects rather than egalitarian politics. Maybe this is where we are, but let's be honest and call it a defeat.