What's wrong with degrowth?

Why is degrowth being sidelined by some of its highest profile populist writers? Is the term degrowth too negative and neo-Malthusian? Should degrowth be treated as a quantitative reduction in economic growth or GDP? Is degrowth drifting from its origins? What happened to degrowth's foundational concerns for limits to growth and stopping the imperialist spread of growth as development? Are pragmatic political alliances now creating fundamental contradictions? Answering such questions this article probes into the attempts to unify disparate theories and ideas and the rise of alliances under the banner of post-growth. The compatibility of four approaches is probed based on high profile advocates public speeches: degrowth (Giorgos Kallis), post-growth (Tim Jackson), doughnut economics (Kate Raworth) and steady-state economics (Timothy Parrique). The speeches are primarily the plenary presentations given at the two major European Parliament conferences profiling the degrowth community within policy-making circles: Post-Growth 2018 and Beyond Growth 2023. Uncritical broad alliances are brought into question as conflicting with creating meaningful and coherent understanding. Three issues are then discussed further: conceptualising the growth imaginary, the reality of limits, and development within planetary boundaries. The analysis suggests a series of ways forward using critical realism as under-labourer. These include applying rational judgement to choose between theories, realism in conceptualisation, and investigating causal mechanisms and structure to identify potentiality for systems change.