capitalism and eternal growth

[LastVoter]

And peak population is likely to be earlier than predicted... as fertility falls faster than predicted with the projected recovery not having occurred in developed nations (look at fertility trends the past 5 years in developed nations).

Unfortunately not as the African and Middle Eastern populations will stabilize later than expected. We are up from a stable world population around 2050 to stabilisation somewhere around 2100.

Too optimistic, capitalism will start killing people long before than.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I think AG did a good job.

He basically derailed it from the start by claiming not to understand basic political and sociological concepts. The whole was basically ruined by feigning ignorance about basic marxist or marxist inspired concepts instead of debating them. I cant see how that is doing a good job.
 

No he didn't. He pointed out that they are pseudo-concepts. That's all.

That they are "pseudo concepts" is an opinion and starting out claiming that you don't know what capitalism is whitout offering a decent argumentation as to why you dont recognize this basic concept was never going to get us anywhere productive.

If you start out debating terminology you almost never get anywhere remotely interesting. Its the great travesty of academic debate that so much time is wasted clarifying concepts and a major reason why its so often sterile.

Even practical concepts like "actual producers" were dismissed, as if a distinction between people who produce goods and services and those who monitor and administrate this process doesn't exist and apparently there is no "current economic model" in the world!

Any analysis of society that aspires to be scientific should use terms that are clearly identifiable and have specific meanings. "Capitalism" to my mind has neither of those things. I've already posted that Gunder Frank quote which pointed out that the idea of "Capitalism" in Marxism was based on a form of historical determinism in which Capitalism was one stage of historical development - up from Feudalism - that would eventually and inevitably lead to Communism. The history of the last 100 years should demonstrate the problem of this vision of historical stage theory meanwhile I should add many medievalists since the 1970s have rejected the concept of 'feudalism' as a meaningful term for describing the whole social totality of the middle ages.

In short, the Marxist metaphysics which underlaid Capitalism as a concept was wrong. If this debate seems sterile to you well that's because we are talking about ideas which effect how we run and operate the whole of society, that highly complex system of which we have little understanding. It would thus be to wrong to make our decisions on the basis of incorrect conceptual errors. Our concepts must be good. So to show the idea is meaningful the burden of proof imo is on you.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Also all this talk of "economic models" as social totalities (that Capitalism is not a just term which can describe a type of exchange or, perhaps more accurately, a type of economic relations but society as a whole) suggests that we could change easily out of 'Capitalism' if we wanted to? Ignoring the problem of identifying who 'we' are, how do we do this? Even if you take the idea of a transition between Feudalism and Capitalism seriously (and I don't) it took hundreds of years even well in the 20th century

[© tweed]

"Capitalism" to my mind has neither of those things. I've already posted that Gunder Frank quote which pointed out that the idea of "Capitalism" in Marxism was based on a form of historical determinism in which Capitalism was one stage of historical development - up from Feudalism - that would eventually and inevitably lead to Communism.

as an aside, this is more of a 'vulgar-Marxist' concept taken from a Stalinist catechism than anything else.  it is far from demonstrable that Marx ever argued along these lines, though he suggested them once or twice. 

[Tetro Kornbluth]

"Capitalism" to my mind has neither of those things. I've already posted that Gunder Frank quote which pointed out that the idea of "Capitalism" in Marxism was based on a form of historical determinism in which Capitalism was one stage of historical development - up from Feudalism - that would eventually and inevitably lead to Communism.

as an aside, this is more of a 'vulgar-Marxist' concept taken from a Stalinist catechism than anything else.  it is far from demonstrable that Marx ever argued along these lines, though he suggested them once or twice. 

Ok. Fair enough. I must go back to my Marx then but that thus raises two problems: 1) If Capitalism is a thing that is changeable (i.e. Is not a permanent condition of humanity but a development from human history) then surely it arose out of particular historical and intellectual conditions. If not the 'transition from Feudalism', then what? and 2) If the notions of Capitalism we are arguing about are descendent from the Catechisms of Stalinism, what does they say of our notions?

[The Mikado]

As far as the economic growth being necessary for the capitalist economic system argument goes, I've only heard it in relation to the massive population boom of the past two hundred years attributable to industrialization and the massive increase of agricultural output.  The human population two hundred years ago was a seventh what it is today, it stands to reason that we had to expand our global economy at least sevenfold (in actuality much more than that) to keep the standard of living from plummeting too far. 

As the industrial world allows for a higher and higher maximum population, especially agricultural production needs to expand at a similar absurd rate to prevent a Malthusian crisis, but fewer and fewer people are needed to grow more and more crops, so there also has to be a large and ever-expanding field of non-agricultural employment available to ensure that as the population rose, unemployment wouldn't shoot up along with it.

As ag points out, population growth is slowing and might well peak in the latter part of the coming century, at which point the above dynamic loses some of its meaning.

[politicus]

As far as the economic growth being necessary for the capitalist economic system argument goes, I've only heard it in relation to the massive population boom of the past two hundred years attributable to industrialization and the massive increase of agricultural output.  The human population two hundred years ago was a seventh what it is today, it stands to reason that we had to expand our global economy at least sevenfold (in actuality much more than that) to keep the standard of living from plummeting too far.  

As the industrial world allows for a higher and higher maximum population, especially agricultural production needs to expand at a similar absurd rate to prevent a Malthusian crisis, but fewer and fewer people are needed to grow more and more crops, so there also has to be a large and ever-expanding field of non-agricultural employment available to ensure that as the population rose, unemployment wouldn't shoot up along with it.

As ag points out, population growth is slowing and might well peak in the latter part of the coming century, at which point the above dynamic loses some of its meaning.

Thats a good summary of the broad pattern. I have a few qualifications:

- Industrialism and capitalism are not the same thing. In principle this technology driven industrialisation could have happened within a different economic system.

- A stable world population will not end the demand for growth and we have already been using more resources than can be regenerated since 1983 (not counting non-renewable resources here). So the growth dilemma wont end with peak population. Degrowth might even be necessary.

- The amount of jobs depends on the hours per full time job. Part of the reason the economy grows so fast is that we havent had the transformation of increased productivity to increased leisure that John Stuart Mill and Keynes predicted. We have shorter working days, but the cut in work time has been far less than the increase in productivity. Hence the "need" to keep creating new types of jobs in the West at such a high rate.

[© tweed]

"Capitalism" to my mind has neither of those things. I've already posted that Gunder Frank quote which pointed out that the idea of "Capitalism" in Marxism was based on a form of historical determinism in which Capitalism was one stage of historical development - up from Feudalism - that would eventually and inevitably lead to Communism.

as an aside, this is more of a 'vulgar-Marxist' concept taken from a Stalinist catechism than anything else.  it is far from demonstrable that Marx ever argued along these lines, though he suggested them once or twice.  

Ok. Fair enough. I must go back to my Marx then but that thus raises two problems: 1) If Capitalism is a thing that is changeable (i.e. Is not a permanent condition of humanity but a development from human history) then surely it arose out of particular historical and intellectual conditions. If not the 'transition from Feudalism', then what? and 2) If the notions of Capitalism we are arguing about are descendent from the Catechisms of Stalinism, what does they say of our notions?

to go even further, I don't believe Marx ever used the word 'capitalism', preferring instead more specific phrases like 'capitalist mode of production'.  I'm not sure how we even got started on this as if we look at my OP there is nothing particularly marxist about it, and I don't use specifically Marxian categories like surplus-value or exchange-value or etc.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

"Capitalism" to my mind has neither of those things. I've already posted that Gunder Frank quote which pointed out that the idea of "Capitalism" in Marxism was based on a form of historical determinism in which Capitalism was one stage of historical development - up from Feudalism - that would eventually and inevitably lead to Communism.

as an aside, this is more of a 'vulgar-Marxist' concept taken from a Stalinist catechism than anything else.  it is far from demonstrable that Marx ever argued along these lines, though he suggested them once or twice.  

Ok. Fair enough. I must go back to my Marx then but that thus raises two problems: 1) If Capitalism is a thing that is changeable (i.e. Is not a permanent condition of humanity but a development from human history) then surely it arose out of particular historical and intellectual conditions. If not the 'transition from Feudalism', then what? and 2) If the notions of Capitalism we are arguing about are descendent from the Catechisms of Stalinism, what does they say of our notions?

to go even further, I don't believe Marx ever used the word 'capitalism', preferring instead more specific phrases like 'capitalist mode of production'.  I'm not sure how we even got started on this as if we look at my OP there is nothing particularly marxist about it, and I don't use specifically Marxian categories like surplus-value or exchange-value or etc.

My attack wasn't against Marx per se so much that Marxian-derived concept of 'Capitalism' that was referenced in the OP which wasn't particularly Marxist either.

[© tweed]

how is it Marxian derived?  it is not as if the use of word itself is limited to Marxists.  I freely admit that my natural interest in the left has led Marxism to have a disproportionate influence on my modes of thought, but has never before prevented with communication with others on a basic level.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

how is it Marxian derived?  it is not as if the use of word itself is limited to Marxists.  I freely admit that my natural interest in the left has led Marxism to have a disproportionate influence on my modes of thought, but has never before prevented with communication with others on a basic level.

No. Of course it's not limited to Marxists. That's the point. But the idea that 'modes of production' are a key historical structural of which is the current, existing one is referred to as 'Capitalism' is an idea with its origins in Marx (and Hegel too obviously, if you are talking about Historical structuralism).

[© tweed]

how is it Marxian derived?  it is not as if the use of word itself is limited to Marxists.  I freely admit that my natural interest in the left has led Marxism to have a disproportionate influence on my modes of thought, but has never before prevented with communication with others on a basic level.

No. Of course it's not limited to Marxists. That's the point. But the idea that 'modes of production' are a key historical structural of which is the current, existing one is referred to as 'Capitalism' is an idea with its origins in Marx (and Hegel too obviously, if you are talking about Historical structuralism).

or going further back, with Smith and Ricardo.  which closes the circle, no?

[politicus]

OK, lets avoid the term capitalism and try looking at two of the elements of the economy, that some of the more radical "no growthers" believe will have to change in a no growth/degrowth context.

(but remember that some sectors will grow even in a "no growth economy" such as recycling ad renewable energy)

Assumption: Two fundamental structural features of the present economic system drive growth and resource depletion.

1. Private finance.

Private finance inevitably demands interest as compensation for risk, and therefore requires continuous growth for proper functioning.

If one agrees with this statement private finance must be replaced by community finance in which risk is socialized so that we do not have to demand interest as the price of creating and maintaining useful infrastructure and production.

2. Competitive accumulation of domestic consumption rights.

The problem with private savings is that society as whole does not save other than relatively small inventories of manufactured goods and raw materials.
The only real savings is in the build up infrastuctre (incl. production capacity) of society and in the resource base which supports that infrastructure. So the competition to obtain lots of savings is a competition to build up infrastructre and use it to produce lots of goods and services. Society as a whole can decide that it has sufficient infrastructure. But for the individual economic actor seeking personal security and economic independence, anxiety about the future drives a constant desire for the further accumulation of consumption rights (which obviously requires growth).

So the competitive accumulation of domestic consumption rights may have to be replaced by work and income sharing (which could be called "socialism"). The older people whose productivity drops are supported by younger people who are in their productive prime. "This condition of mutual dependence is a physical reality and until we give up our quest for a delusory economic independence we will find no solution to the ecological dilemmas which face us". In other words: retirement should be funded by community, not by private savings.

Is there any truth to this line of reasoning? If there is it would mean a more collectivist economy (which some of us would consider non-capitalist  )

To Tweed: When you said capitalism, was this the factors you thought about, or was it more than that?

[Gustaf]

I think AG did a good job. I'd just add that if you don't want to be condescended to then don't be an idiot. Or if you insist on being an idiot, at least don't try to be arrogant about it.

Are you talking about me here? If so, say it.

Assuming you did. Why is it idiotic to want to discuss something on a principled level? Or quoting a well regarded expert on these matters like Peter Victor.

Its too cowardly writing a weiled attack like that without saying who you are talking about. Not providing any documentation or actual references to back up your claim of "idiocy" and supposed "arrogance" is problematic.

The comment was directed at several people and I no longer recall exactly whom.

It's idiotic to be arrogant about economics if one doesn't get it. And the whole premise of this thread is flawed. I'm sorry if that upsets you. I'm sure Ag and others are willing to help people understand economics but then those people need to show some awareness of how little they know on the topic.

[t_host1]

oh no, this might fit (help) the premise here,

Take a bow, capitalism.

This story was talked about on that Big Wing Radio thing.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

[politicus]

oh no, this might fit (help) the premise here,

Take a bow, capitalism.

This story was talked about on that Big Wing Radio thing.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim

I think you got this all wrong. No one denies that capitalism is efficient at creating economic growth - and thereby raising living standards. This is not a capitalism vs. socialism debate, but a discussion of whether the current economic system can function in the no growth/degrowth situation we might face in the future - either by choice (in order to prevent an ecological breakdown) or due to lack of resources - in the long run this includes labour.

[Gustaf]

OK, lets avoid the term capitalism and try looking at two of the elements of the economy, that some of the more radical "no growthers" believe will have to change in a no growth/degrowth context.

(but remember that some sectors will grow even in a "no growth economy" such as recycling ad renewable energy)

Assumption: Two fundamental structural features of the present economic system drive growth and resource depletion.

1. Private finance.

Private finance inevitably demands interest as compensation for risk, and therefore requires continuous growth for proper functioning.

If one agrees with this statement private finance must be replaced by community finance in which risk is socialized so that we do not have to demand interest as the price of creating and maintaining useful infrastructure and production.

2. Competitive accumulation of domestic consumption rights.

The problem with private savings is that society as whole does not save other than relatively small inventories of manufactured goods and raw materials.
The only real savings is in the build up infrastuctre (incl. production capacity) of society and in the resource base which supports that infrastructure. So the competition to obtain lots of savings is a competition to build up infrastructre and use it to produce lots of goods and services. Society as a whole can decide that it has sufficient infrastructure. But for the individual economic actor seeking personal security and economic independence, anxiety about the future drives a constant desire for the further accumulation of consumption rights (which obviously requires growth).

So the competitive accumulation of domestic consumption rights may have to be replaced by work and income sharing (which could be called "socialism"). The older people whose productivity drops are supported by younger people who are in their productive prime. "This condition of mutual dependence is a physical reality and until we give up our quest for a delusory economic independence we will find no solution to the ecological dilemmas which face us". In other words: retirement should be funded by community, not by private savings.

Is there any truth to this line of reasoning? If there is it would mean a more collectivist economy (which some of us would consider non-capitalist  )

To Tweed: When you said capitalism, was this the factors you thought about, or was it more than that?

I know I'm on ignore but I guess others might be served by knowing that 1 is false and again shows that you don't understand economics very well. You can charge interest without growth.

I also don't understand 2. Some people will consume more than they produce, some less and people will smooth their consumption over time. I don't see why this would require growth.

I will also reiterate that AG did well in pointing out that the use of vague catch-phrases from people who don't understand the subject doesn't make for good analysis. Using growth is an improvement, since it reveals how far off the idea of this thread is.

[politicus]

OK, lets avoid the term capitalism and try looking at two of the elements of the economy, that some of the more radical "no growthers" believe will have to change in a no growth/degrowth context.

(but remember that some sectors will grow even in a "no growth economy" such as recycling ad renewable energy)

Assumption: Two fundamental structural features of the present economic system drive growth and resource depletion.

1. Private finance.

Private finance inevitably demands interest as compensation for risk, and therefore requires continuous growth for proper functioning.

If one agrees with this statement private finance must be replaced by community finance in which risk is socialized so that we do not have to demand interest as the price of creating and maintaining useful infrastructure and production.

2. Competitive accumulation of domestic consumption rights.

The problem with private savings is that society as whole does not save other than relatively small inventories of manufactured goods and raw materials.
The only real savings is in the build up infrastuctre (incl. production capacity) of society and in the resource base which supports that infrastructure. So the competition to obtain lots of savings is a competition to build up infrastructre and use it to produce lots of goods and services. Society as a whole can decide that it has sufficient infrastructure. But for the individual economic actor seeking personal security and economic independence, anxiety about the future drives a constant desire for the further accumulation of consumption rights (which obviously requires growth).

So the competitive accumulation of domestic consumption rights may have to be replaced by work and income sharing (which could be called "socialism"). The older people whose productivity drops are supported by younger people who are in their productive prime. "This condition of mutual dependence is a physical reality and until we give up our quest for a delusory economic independence we will find no solution to the ecological dilemmas which face us". In other words: retirement should be funded by community, not by private savings.

Is there any truth to this line of reasoning? If there is it would mean a more collectivist economy (which some of us would consider non-capitalist  )

To Tweed: When you said capitalism, was this the factors you thought about, or was it more than that?

I know I'm on ignore but I guess others might be served by knowing that 1 is false and again shows that you don't understand economics very well. You can charge interest without growth.

I also don't understand 2. Some people will consume more than they produce, some less and people will smooth their consumption over time. I don't see why this would require growth.

I will also reiterate that AG did well in pointing out that the use of vague catch-phrases from people who don't understand the subject doesn't make for good analysis. Using growth is an improvement, since it reveals how far off the idea of this thread is.

The positions I have presented in this thread are not mine (a few are, but thats not the point), I have been trying to introduce an academic debate about non-growth economics and havent received serious answers just dismissive "you are a dummy"-talk.

There is no reason to write things like "you dont understand economcs very well" when I quote economists from alternative schools. It was clearly mentioned in the post, that I quoted arguments by others. Its misreading stuff like that, which makes you so irritating to debate with.

Also, you seem to overlook the important qualifier "proper" in their first argument again simplying by saying you can charge interests without growth, which is obvious, but not really the point when we are talking about transforming an entire economy.

[Gustaf]

OK, lets avoid the term capitalism and try looking at two of the elements of the economy, that some of the more radical "no growthers" believe will have to change in a no growth/degrowth context.

(but remember that some sectors will grow even in a "no growth economy" such as recycling ad renewable energy)

Assumption: Two fundamental structural features of the present economic system drive growth and resource depletion.

1. Private finance.

Private finance inevitably demands interest as compensation for risk, and therefore requires continuous growth for proper functioning.

If one agrees with this statement private finance must be replaced by community finance in which risk is socialized so that we do not have to demand interest as the price of creating and maintaining useful infrastructure and production.

2. Competitive accumulation of domestic consumption rights.

The problem with private savings is that society as whole does not save other than relatively small inventories of manufactured goods and raw materials.
The only real savings is in the build up infrastuctre (incl. production capacity) of society and in the resource base which supports that infrastructure. So the competition to obtain lots of savings is a competition to build up infrastructre and use it to produce lots of goods and services. Society as a whole can decide that it has sufficient infrastructure. But for the individual economic actor seeking personal security and economic independence, anxiety about the future drives a constant desire for the further accumulation of consumption rights (which obviously requires growth).

So the competitive accumulation of domestic consumption rights may have to be replaced by work and income sharing (which could be called "socialism"). The older people whose productivity drops are supported by younger people who are in their productive prime. "This condition of mutual dependence is a physical reality and until we give up our quest for a delusory economic independence we will find no solution to the ecological dilemmas which face us". In other words: retirement should be funded by community, not by private savings.

Is there any truth to this line of reasoning? If there is it would mean a more collectivist economy (which some of us would consider non-capitalist  )

To Tweed: When you said capitalism, was this the factors you thought about, or was it more than that?

I know I'm on ignore but I guess others might be served by knowing that 1 is false and again shows that you don't understand economics very well. You can charge interest without growth.

I also don't understand 2. Some people will consume more than they produce, some less and people will smooth their consumption over time. I don't see why this would require growth.

I will also reiterate that AG did well in pointing out that the use of vague catch-phrases from people who don't understand the subject doesn't make for good analysis. Using growth is an improvement, since it reveals how far off the idea of this thread is.

The positions I have presented in this thread are not mine (a few are, but thats not the point), I have been trying to introduce an academic debate about non-growth economics and havent received serious answers just dismissive "you are a dummy"-talk.

There is no reason to write things like "you dont understand economcs very well" when I quote economists from alternative schools. It was clearly mentioned in the post, that I quoted arguments by others. Its misreading stuff like that, which makes you so irritating to debate with.

Also, you seem to overlook the important qualifier "proper" in their first argument again simplying by saying you can charge interests without growth, which is obvious, but not really the point when we are talking about transforming an entire economy.

It's not economics from an alternative school, just like saying the Moon is made of cheese is not alternative physics.

This isn't an academic debate because it's based on, well. I'm not sure exactly. But not anything recognizable in academia.

You seem to think that you're providing a starting point for a debate and some type of valid alternative view points. But since that's not true it does indicate a lack of understanding of the field.

And what is a proper interest rate? That is, again, a term I don't understand. I've never seen such a distinction made in economics.

[politicus]

The positions I have presented in this thread are not mine (a few are, but that's not the point), I have been trying to introduce an academic debate about non-growth economics and haven't received serious answers just dismissive "you are a dummy"-talk.

There is no reason to write things like "you don't understand economics very well" when I quote economists from alternative schools. It was clearly mentioned in the post, that I quoted arguments by others. Its misreading stuff like that, which makes you so irritating to debate with.

Also, you seem to overlook the important qualifier "proper" in their first argument again simplifying by saying you can charge interests without growth, which is obvious, but not really the point when we are talking about transforming an entire economy.

It's not economics from an alternative school, just like saying the Moon is made of cheese is not alternative physics.

This isn't an academic debate because it's based on, well. I'm not sure exactly. But not anything recognizable in academia.

You seem to think that you're providing a starting point for a debate and some type of valid alternative view points. But since that's not true it does indicate a lack of understanding of the field.

And what is a proper interest rate? That is, again, a term I don't understand. I've never seen such a distinction made in economics.

Your arrogance is just absurd.. Peter Victor is a professor at York University and environmental economics is a recognized field of research. Who are you to liken a well established academic discipline to claiming the moon is made of cheese? Why not at least do some basic research in the field before providing such a dismissive answer?

http://ineteconomics.org/people/peter-victor

Also, neither I, nor anyone I quoted, used the term "proper interest rate" (whereas the phrase "proper functioning" was used).

[Gustaf]

The positions I have presented in this thread are not mine (a few are, but that's not the point), I have been trying to introduce an academic debate about non-growth economics and haven't received serious answers just dismissive "you are a dummy"-talk.

There is no reason to write things like "you don't understand economics very well" when I quote economists from alternative schools. It was clearly mentioned in the post, that I quoted arguments by others. Its misreading stuff like that, which makes you so irritating to debate with.

Also, you seem to overlook the important qualifier "proper" in their first argument again simplifying by saying you can charge interests without growth, which is obvious, but not really the point when we are talking about transforming an entire economy.

It's not economics from an alternative school, just like saying the Moon is made of cheese is not alternative physics.

This isn't an academic debate because it's based on, well. I'm not sure exactly. But not anything recognizable in academia.

You seem to think that you're providing a starting point for a debate and some type of valid alternative view points. But since that's not true it does indicate a lack of understanding of the field.

And what is a proper interest rate? That is, again, a term I don't understand. I've never seen such a distinction made in economics.

Your arrogance is just absurd.. Peter Victor is a professor at York University and environmental economics is a recognized field of research. Who are you to liken a well established academic discipline to claiming the moon is made of cheese? Why not at least do some basic research in the field before providing such a dismissive answer?

http://ineteconomics.org/people/peter-victor

Also, neither I, nor anyone I quoted, used the term "proper interest rate" (whereas the phrase "proper functioning" was used).

This was a late bump. You're the one presenting this alternative field and its ideas. What you have presented makes no sense. Now, if this is because you don't understand it yourself I don't know. But I don't really see that as my responsibility or problem in this context. Maybe the man has good things to say but what you have put forward here is not some interesting alternative theory.

For someone so allergic to semantic debates you seem very into semantics. So what is a proper functioning interest rate then?

[Deus Naturae]

1. Private finance.

Private finance inevitably demands interest as compensation for risk, and therefore requires continuous growth for proper functioning.

If one agrees with this statement private finance must be replaced by community finance in which risk is socialized so that we do not have to demand interest as the price of creating and maintaining useful infrastructure and production.

"Community finance" is incredibly vague. What does it mean?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, people generally desire to improve their material conditions over time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Alright, I don't agree with this, but I don't see how it contradicts "eternal growth." It's possible to tax the young and subsidize the old (and provide public "savings" programs generally) without preventing the development of production infrastructure/capital goods.