Carrol, I think is entirely correct here, particularly when we are
talking about systemic viability. I would argue, as suggested below,
that capitalism is not historically viable in the long run because it is
dependent on growth. Here, I will quote Herman Daly at some length.
"Economists should be very interested in impossibility theorems,
especially the one I now cite; namely, that /it is impossible for the
world economy to grow its way out of poverty and environmental degradation.
In other words, sustainable growth is impossible./ /..../ It is
very difficult, politically, to admit that growth, with its almost
religious connotation of ultimate goodness, must be limited. But it is
precisely the non-sustainability of growth that gives urgency to the
concept of sustainable development. The planet will not tolerate the
doubling of even one grain of wheat 64 times, yet in the past two
centuries we have developed a culture that is dependent on exponential
growth for the economic stability.
If the economy cannot grow forever, then by how much can it grow?
Can it grow by enough to give everyone in the world a standard of per
capita resource use equal to that of the average American, Canadian, or
Western European? [i.e. a factor of 7]
The problem is that even expansion by a factor of four is
impossible when the human economy currently pre-empts one-fourth of the
global net primary product of photosynthesis.... How then can people
keep on talking about sustainable growth when 1) the present scale of
the economy shows clear signs of unsustainability, 2) multiplying the
scale by a factor of 5 to 10 [Bruntland Commission] would move us from
unsustainability to imminent collapse, and 3) the concept itself is
logically self-contradictory in a finite, non-growing ecosphere? ....
Sustainable development must be development without growth -- but
with population control and wealth redistribution -- if it is to be a
serious attack on poverty. Before ... sustainable development can get a
fair hearing, we must first take the conceptual and political step of
abandoning the thought-stopping slogan of sustainable growth."
[Excerpted from a longer article in the CCPA Monitoe, June 2007, pp. 38-39]
My point to Julio, if capitalism is dependent on growth and is therefore
unviable, where is its efficiency even in your terms (which I do not
accept)?
Paul P
Carrol Cox wrote:
<snip>
No socialist system is going to produce a mass of goods to match an
advanced capitalist society -- and that will be an advantage, not a
disadvantage. Total production has to fall (from US/EU/Japan levels) or
the human species won't survive.
Carrol
--
Paul Phillips Professor Emertus, Economics University of Manitoba Home
and Office: 3806 - 36A st., Vernon BC, Canada. ViT 6E9 tel: 1 (250)
558-0830 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
