[Marxism] Is capitalism really in a grow-or-die situation?

[Barry Brooks]

Is capitalism really in a grow-or-die
situation?

It appears that the limits to growth
will REQUIRE the world to adopt economic
systems that can function without growth
in consumption. Which systems can adapt
to reduced consumption? Capitalism will
not be able to adapt the the end of
consumption growth if it really needs
consumption growth, as many people believe.

Assuming competition among giants will
define capitalism in the near future,
just what makes growth a necessity for
the survival of that kind of capitalism?

To demonstrate that capitalism 'needs'
growth we must find at least one feature
that mandates growth. We must separate
need from desire. If we can only find
desire there is hope that capitalism can
function without growth. A real need for
growth will spell doom for capitalism in
this limited world.

Here are a few desires that are held to
be needs:

Investors do not need a rate of profit
greater than their competitors. The
required rate of profit is merely the
going rate of return for other
investments of a similar nature. Real
price competition would prevent any
business having a higher rate of profit
than is dictated by the prevailing
return on investment plus premiums for
risk and liquidity.

The desire for greater profits will not
support the claim that capitalism is a
grow-or-die system. Investors desire
high profits. From their personal point
of view profits are never high enough,
but business can operate very well with
just adequate profits. There's nothing
grow-or-die in their desire for more and
more. That's just whining.

Even if we suppose the rate of profit
must go up and up , which is not true,
that doesn't mean that capitalism needs
output to go up and up as well.

The list of possible reasons why
capitalism may be in a grow-or-die
situation has only one outstanding
member that I know of:

Capitalist society needs growth to
offset increasing labor productivity.
Competition forces increased labor
productivity, and that increased
productivity will cause unacceptable
levels of unemployment without growth in
consumption.

Population growth adds to the need for
growth in consumption, but its effect on
employment is largely canceled since
each additional person is both a worker
and a consumer. The population level
combines with the prevailing labor
productivity to set the amount of labor,
and the amount of output the system
"needs." To end any system's need for
growth its population must be stabilized
and something besides growth will be
needed to offset growing labor productivity.

Capitalism needs to cope with both
growth in population and growth in
productivity to survive. Assuming for
now that population stabilized, then how
can capitalism deal with the coming of
robots and the unemployment caused by
high productivity? The answer is waiting
nearby. Capitalism could hope to become
sustainable because it has unearned
income, that old invisible gorilla.

Capitalism could end its need for full
employment by allowing welfare for the
unemployed. Welfare would be just as
acceptable as dividends if people knew
how wealth gets stolen over and over.

Capitalism could regulate itself again
so that the parasitic idle rich had to
share their loot with the redundant lazy
poor. That would still be capitalism,
right? The welfare state doesn't need
growth, and it is still capitalism. If
you don't like the lifeboat jump in the
water.

Capitalism can solve the population
problem too. Aside from poverty and war,
looking for kinder methods, I propose
that investors lend support to planned
parenthood just to cover their asses.
Odd they haven't tried that yet. Their
minions in the media could easily fend
off the "every sperm is sacred" crowd
with a video of a helpless egg being
raped by terrible sperm.

Everyone can be proud of the machines we
built do our work, for a while.
Productivity may fall. Perhaps the end
of free energy, rising system
incompetence, weather, and war will
create full employment for workers as
soldiers or manual labors without any
growth in output at all being needed.

Barry Brooks