GF: If I may skip over several steps of argument here, what I
think you're saying in essence is that growth is a political
need of the ruling class, rather than an economic need of
the community as a whole.
That being the case, the defect of the Greens' alleged
desire for zero growth which J.H. disparaged is not the
zero growth itself, but their omission of specifying the
concomitant requirement -- the overthrow or dissolution of
the class system and the class war that sustains it.
**********
While Green literature may not mention getting rid of the class system, many many greens realize the necessity of this. One can usually garnish their approach when they talk about ending adversarial democracy and predatory economics; it's a difference of metaphorical emphasis.
mbs: On a), I would say that insofar as growth is an expectation
of the masses, it becomes a 'need' for psychological
reasons and to rulers for political reasons (stability,
consent of the governed).
On b), the defect of ZG is the fact that advances in economic
justice usually require growth as a context -- since zero-
sum disputes are typically resolved in favor of the relatively
privileged. "Overthrow or dissolution . . . etc." taken in
isolation is just ultimatism, a substitute for politics in
the here and now. So this would be the exchange of one
form of unreality for another.
mbs
*********
Greens call for zero growth in the net energy flows through the economy [I leave aside the entropy/energy/exergy debate] and massive reductions of the effluent profiles of many industry sectors. They also encourage the search for property rights regimens that will create 1]the optimal depletion paths for resources that have no readily available substitutes--the buying time till we get much smarter argument -- and 2]facilitate the optimal yield strategies for each regenerative/renewable ecosystem, which involves detailed, and widely available knowledge of how each system works, so as to encourage participatory decisonmaking.
We need to adopt some variants of these research and policy proposals rather quickly if growth -suitably redefined- is to continue.
The work of Geoffrey Heal and Paul Ekins go quite far in spelling out policy applicable theory; Daly gives a great "pre-analytical" motivation/heuristic/paradigm shift blah blah blah.
To read them the way 'you know who' read Smith, Ricardo etc....... is a worthwhile challenge
Ian