Let’s put some life into this sub. I don’t think degrowth is possible under capitalism because the imperative to degrow contradicts the capitalist drive for the creation of value (valorization) which must always grow under capitalism’

  • Edmond Dantesk
    link
    fedilink
    11 year ago

    Not sure I agree with everything, let me rephrase this.

    The way I see it, capitalism is a way of organizing an economic system that is based on accumulation of wealth (capital). Instead of sitting idle, capital is injected back into the economy through investment, with the promise of a juicy return on investment (and also, it gives power to those who own capital for they decide who gets investment).

    For this juicy ROI to be possible, economic growth is a necessity - you can’t give back more to your lenders if what you did with the investment didn’t generate more value than the investment itself. So economic growth is at the very heart of capitalism.

    When the market comes to a saturation point, growth starts to slow down. So you have two options:

    1. open new markets, expanding the economic sphere (either geographically or in new segments of life)
    2. make disposable products, through engineering (planned obsolescence) or advertisement (you need the new iPhone, believe me)

    In the end, I don’t see consumerism as an ideal for a society, but rather the logical consequence of an economic system reified as an ideal. It doesn’t mean something similar couldn’t exist in another economic model, but I don’t think it can be separated from capitalism.

    • @bouh
      link
      11 year ago

      Ok, here a clearer explanation : a saturated market is a good example of capitalism without actual growth. Let’s say you have 3 capitalists on a saturated market. The market will not grow, because it’s saturated, so they will, in turn, increase their share of the market at the expanse of the other. That’s what happens for example with graphic cards.

      Capitalism doesn’t need growth, as long as someone can lose wealth, someone else can benefit from the loss. Growth merely helps to have less losers if the growth is shared (which doesn’t happens naturally). That’s why I was describing growth as an illusion for people to believe in capitalism. Capitalism doesn’t need growth, growth only allow less losers. But growth doesn’t fix anything about capitalism, and you need consumerism to fuel it, which in turns destroy the planet.

      • Edmond Dantesk
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        I see what you mean, but I think it’s true up to a certain point. Without growth, wealth concentration converges to a point where one actor owns everything. This is the perfect recipe for political instability and systemic failure.

        • @bouh
          link
          11 year ago

          It is to some extent. Unrest or even revolutions don’t necessarily end capitalism. It rarely does actually.

          IMO capitalism is inherently unstable. Capitalism cannot gracefully adapt to unexpected shocks (it will cause economic troubles, many people will have their lives ruined and many will profit from thee chaos), and it causes it’s own crisis on a regular basis. I once saw a paper that was arguing that crisis were normal capitalist regime, because since the 19th century there were more periods of crisis than periods of stable growth.