> You seem to be disputing the basic premise that capitalism
> requires economic growth to function.
I am not disputing it, because it simply cannot be disputed in a scientific way i.e. by empirical testing. It is metaphysics - true by definition, and quite frankly, I have little interest in entertaining such issues, as they do not seem to lead anywhere.
You seem to be implying
> that the capitalist economic system can be reformed in some
> way that contradicts its essential nature. I'm not sure how
> you arrived at that conclusion, this appears impossibly utopian.
I simply believe that people can devise a solution to a problem, especially if they have the material means of solving that problem, no matter whether that solution is called capitalism or something else. All the arguments about the impossibility of a solution inferred from properties of systems strike me as purely semantic exercises in futility. I recall reading that earlier in the 20th century some serious scientists argued the impossibility of space flights in the same way as the latter-days doom sayers argue the impossibility of capitalism - by pointing its supposed internal contradictions. Specifically, the argument went, the amount of energy required to place any mass on the orbit was more than the amount of energy that the same mass could deliver i.e. the amount of energy derived from any fuel known to mankind was insufficient to place that mass of fuel (let alone that of the space-craft) on the orbit.
This of course, was proved wrong, as most of such arguments from logical impossibility. The reason for that is quite simply - logical impossibility is a construct of the human mind, not the property of the material world. The fact that we can construct a logical possibility or impossibility does not mean jack shit unless that possibility or impossibility is empirically proven.
So unless someone shows me (i) a material cause that requires constant growth and (b) the inability of human actors (not systems or kindred abstractions but real human actors!) to eliminate, alter or otherwise circumvent that cause - I can think of a several plausible scenarios in which the zero growth model is implemented using the current organization and technology as well as plausible scenarios of circumventing some of the negative consequences of prior economic and social activities. That does not mean that such scenarios will be conflict free or will not have different winners and losers - but that there as material capability of implementing such scenarios and that capability will be utilized when the environment or social pressures force a change. And whether this change is called 'reformed capitalism,' a 'third-way,' neo-eco-socialism,' or a 'shit on a stick' is merely a semantic issue of little interest.
> As for political will to reform capitalism, hasn't that been
> a failed experiment? History seems to demonstrate that such
> politically neutered capitalist systems are hopelessly
> inefficient and the internal contradictions inevitably lead
> to economic collapse?
Like what? Sweden or Norway do not strike me as being on a verge of collapse, nor does Japan or for that matter EU - but all those countries can be described as substantially 'reformed capitalism' if 'capitalism' is a the British system described by Karl Marx. In fact, there is probably more variation within the group labeled 'capitalism' than between- group variation between 'capitalism' and say socialism as we know it.
As I see it, the 'reformed' capitalism of Sweden, Norway, EU or for that matter NZ seem to do better in terms of efficiency and quality of life than the 'unreformed' variety found in the US of A.
Wojtek