Re: Does capitalism really need growth to survive?

[mongiovg <mongiovg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Off the top of my head, it probably depends on whether you're talking about a
mathematical model of how capitalism works or about how capitalism actually
works in reality.  It surely is possible to construct models in which the
system sustains itself without growing: that is, with zero net investment.
But it is doubtful whether zero-net-investment can sustain aggregate demand
when net saving is positive.

Moreover, the political economy of real world capitalism almost certainly
requires capital accumulation and growth. This I think has to do with class
struggle over the social surplus.  In the post-Reagan era logic of the system
this manifests itself as fund managers' expectations of ever-increasing profit
margins (it's not enough merely to receive income from ownership--that is,
from producing nothing: the dynamic of the system requires that the relative
magnitude of this form of income increases over time). Without growth the
pressure on wage-earners would probably become politically destabilizing. (The
problem would be exacerbated by population growth: the pie gets divided among
more society members.)  I suppose technical change could allow increased
profitability and a constant living standard for workers without GDP growth.
But I would guess that the circumstances necessary to support this situation
would amount to a highly special case.

Gary

>===== Original Message From "Barry Brooks" <barrybrooks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> =====
>It seems to be accepted that capitalism need growth to survive.  I don't
>understand why.
>
>It seems to me that growth is the root of resource scarcity, excessive
>pollution, and global conflict.  Those problems will make the survival of
>capitalism unlikely.  From this point of view uncontrolled hyper-active
>growth will end capitalism prematurely.
>
>Just why, technically, MUST capitalism grow?
>
>Barry Brooks