The meteoric rise of degrowth (décroissance in French) as a concept has coincided over the last three years with the reappearance of economic crisis and stagnation on a scale not seen since the 1930s. The degrowth concept therefore forces us to confront the questions: Is degrowth feasible in a capitalist grow-or-die society—and if not, what does this say about the transition to a new society?

Capitalism and Degrowth: An Impossibility Theorem
by John Bellamy Foster

In this article, John Bellamy Foster, editor of the Monthly Review and professor of Sociology at the University of Oregon, critiques some of the central ideas promoted by enthusiasts of de-growth. Pointing to the fact that through making economic growth rather than capital accumulation its primary target, de-growth (in practice) would render a huge portion of the globe (poor countries of the periphery) even more destitute than they already are. "The real problem in the global periphery," Foster states, "is overcoming imperial linkages, transforming the existing mode of production, and creating sustainable-egalitarian productive possibilities." De-growth, he points out, is still structurally married to capital accumulation and market mechanisms, and fails "to break with capitalism's institutional basis of the 'law of value,' or to question the structure underpinning the exploitation of labor."

Being that many Southern countries couldn't realistically even withstand a degrowth economy, Foster suggests that "a kind of sustainable development, directed at real needs such as access to water, food, health care, education, etc." should be the preeminent concern in such areas; whilst at the same time raising "larger questions of system change." In an effort to provide our readers with more than one side of this important issue, we encourage you to read this article and raise questions as to how an equitable and ecologically-sound economic system might emerge out of the ashes of our time.