[davep]

I think they just see it as anabolic equals growth and catabolic equals a decrease of some sort. It's pretty sloppy.

A quick google for catabolic gives "The metabolic breakdown of complex molecules into simpler ones, often resulting in a release of energy.". I guess they think it makes them look smart.

[Pops]

Again, it's not about the definitions, it's about ideology.
Ralphy's arguing that capitalism requires growth because his ideological goal of collectivism depends on the end of capitalism:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '.')..we can move from capitalism to a more resilient economy, one where there is nothing beyond a "reasonable income." But for that to happen, and to happen to everyone, there cannot be any profits...

[Pops]

I said the same thing but he insists that profit is always reinvested and always causes growth even outside of the fractional reserve setup.

[SeaGypsy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t's not just that. Rather, the profits are invested, which in turn lead to more production. That's it.

[davep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his debate reminds me of where we were at in 2008/09; when many thought that peak oil would result in immediate systemic collapse as a matter of course;

[evilgenius]

I don't think the question should be, 'does capitalism exist without growth', but 'what does capitalism look like in a no growth scenario?' Taken this way, in reference to my earlier posts, given that capitalism is an approximation of the evolutionary struggle at best I think capitalism has to fall back on some kind of state driven inspiration to find the means perpetuate itself. Whereas I suggest that a friendlier, perhaps more proper and sustainable form of capitalism under growth can exist absent of the 'love of money' in a strict no growth scenario very draconian measures may come about under the auspices of the state. It's not like this hasn't happened before under the fascists in Germany when they had only coal to liquids to provide energy as well as a war machine to gobble up the same. It also has a precursor in that same time frame in the US via rationing for the war effort. Perhaps it is even being foreshadowed now in the guise of austerity measures overtaking Europe?

[SeaGypsy]

In the interim it's more about states needing to cooperate with corporations in order to perpetuate themselves, not capitalism per-se.
Over time government is evolving through- for corporations to- by corporations.

[kublikhan]

If anyone was interested, here is further reading on this topic:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')n ecosocialist critique of proposals for steady-state capitalism begins a debate on key issues facing the left greens today

There’s widespread agreement among left-leaning greens that this society’s drive for economic growth is a key driving force of the global environmental crisis. Many, most notably environmental economist Herman Daly, have made proposals for a “steady-state economy”that allows market forces to operate without growth. That idea is the subject of an important debate in Real World Economics Review, an online journal that often publishes valuable critiquesx of mainstream economic thought.

In issue #53, Richard Smith provides a powerful ecosocialist critique of Daly’s theories, arguing that “the idea of a steady-state capitalism is based on untenable assumptions, starting with the assumption that growth is optional rather than built into capitalism.”

He writes:

“since capitalist growth cannot be stopped, or even slowed, and since the market-driven growth is driving us toward collapse, ecological economists should abandon the fantasy of a steady-state capitalism and get on with the project figuring out what a post–capitalist economic democracy could look like.”

And he concludes: “Either we save capitalism or we save ourselves. We can’t save both.”

In a brief reply in issue #54, Herman Daly declares that he has never used the term steady-state capitalism, instead “always speaking of a steady state economy, which in my view is something different from both capitalism and socialism.” Smith, he says, opposes “my preference for the market over centralized planning as a tool for dealing with the single problem of allocative efficiency,” but doesn’t offer “anything specific or helpful about moving to a steady state economy, whether capitalist or socialist or neither.”

In issue #55, and in the journal’s blog, Smith responds that while Daly has not described his proposal as capitalist, neither has he said what it actually is.

“If there is nothing particularly ‘socialist’ about Daly’s SSE model and he insists that the means of production must be privately owned and that markets ‘determine the allocation of resources,’ then what else can he talking about but capitalism?”

Recommended reading for anyone interested in alternatives to this ecocidal system.

Richard Smith: Beyond growth or beyond capitalism?

Herman Daly: The operative word here is “somehow”

Richard Smith: If Herman Daly has a better plan, let’s hear it

Related articles…

If growth is the problem, why hasn’t it been stopped? (posted on April 10, 2012)

The four laws of ecology and the four anti-ecological laws of capitalism (posted on April 2, 2012)

Can capitalism survive the end of growth? (posted on March 22, 2012)

Green capitalism: the god that failed (posted on May 11, 2011)

A Call for De-growth (posted on June 4, 2009)

Beyond growth or beyond capitalism?

[SeaGypsy]

The gaping hole these green-left arguments is that even if growth was somehow magically terminated everywhere simultaneously (an impossibility) and a 'steady state' economy was somehow instituted (almost as impossible/ especially under anything resembling a democracy in any real way); the resource equations already happening would ensure that ultimate demise is at best just staved off a while. The only way to actually achieve an environmentally positive outcome is not through either of these means; but through dire totalitarian fascism with mandated reduction in both population and resource extraction. Neither democratic, nor in any way politically possible. Nobody is going to vote for/ rationing of every essential commodity/ maximum breeding rates/ forced minimum health requirements for continued life/ forced sterilization/ forced place of living and occupation. In reality the 'steady state' arguments advocate flattening growth globally, meaning forcing limits on the developing world whilst continuing our high living in the first world. Blatantly immoral; either way.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'W')e can let others decide. I have decided you talk in circles and make presumptions galore about the views of others backed neither by fact or quote.
Maybe people aren't interested in reading long winded boring dialectic monologs?

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '.')
Here's Ralphy's definition of capitalism without all the various pronouncements,

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralphy', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'A')ll those arguments boil down to: "capitalism requires growth because capitalism produces growth.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t's not just that. Rather, the profits are invested, which in turn lead to more production. That's it.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'S')o is it catabolic capitalism or conjugated cannibalism or capitulated copulation? Help me out. I am getting confused here.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'A')gain, it's not about the definitions, it's about ideology.
Ralphy's arguing that capitalism requires growth because his ideological goal of collectivism depends on the end of capitalism:

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I') believe the critique of capitalism as growth-dependent has to do with fiat money supply and the nature of usary. Banks (including central banks) lend out more money than they have in reserves, and so must demand interest to cover risk. As a result all payments back to the bank contain a built-in inflation, and necessarily either more debt or additional production/consumption. Hence the need for growth.

Is that right?

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'I') said the same thing but he insists that profit is always reinvested and always causes growth even outside of the fractional reserve setup.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'I') said the same thing but he insists that profit is always reinvested and always causes growth even outside of the fractional reserve setup.