Terry McDonough wrote: > Since the end of WWII capitalist growth has been about blunting > redistributionist demands with increases in consumption all around (though > unequally).<
I think it's simpler: capitalist growth has always been about "accumulate, accumulate" (profits). For awhile, there was a social-democratic compromise in some countries that allowed sharing of the gains of productivity growth, but these fell apart when the Big Threat (the USSR) fell apart and the domestic opposition forces such as labor movements ossified and then fell. Then, it's been about increasing _market-based_ consumption, with (as Terry says) the benefits unequally distributed. There's also been a cut-back in the provision of non-market (public good) provision. >Current grievances centre around global neoliberalism's abandonment of this >kind of growth and the stagnation of middle income living standards. This >kind of growth cannot be resurrected.< I'm unsure what kind of growth you're referring to, Terry. The more egalitarian kind or the neoliberal kind? If it's the former, we can't rule out a world-wide social democracy (or even a world-wide socialism) in the future. Weirder things have happened. (I for one am still amazed that a Black man could be elected president of the US.) >Growth generally depends on increased throughput from the environment. This >has long ago reached its sustainable limit.< I'm not sure that the latter is true. It could be, but we shouldn't assume it. >Jim is right that the exception to this is energy from the sun. However, >advances in the ability to harness this are unlikely to more than offset the >necessary reduction in the burning of carbon compounds.< good point [especially the "Jim is right" part ;-) ], but burning of carbon compounds imposes costs on people and on the natural environment. If they're not burned, these costs are reduced. That's a benefit. In theory at least, the benefits could exceed the costs of cutting the burning of carbon. >Further any success in increasing output will have to be concentrated in less developed countries in exchange for their cooperation in curtailing global warming.< This sounds like some sort of "global deal." It seems just as (im)plausible as global social democracy. Ravi writes: >... I may also have pointed out that sufficient levels of marshalling the >energy from the sun (direct and not reflected off the earth) will no doubt >have its own impact on the environment and other species...< what costs are these? -- Jim Devine / "Nobody told me there'd be days like these / Strange days indeed -- most peculiar, mama." -- JL. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
