Not really. I have no love for either feudalism or palace economies or other formations grounded in coercive seizure of the surplus. The best (when it is not the worst) thing to be said of them is that they are stable/stagnant. (Those two words are descriptive synonyms incorporating opposing valuations of the situation described.) They are not destructive of the future: that is they incorporate the possibility of desirable change. There is also, in these and other 'pre-capitalist' social formations a reasonably direct relationship between the declared purpose of an action and the action's probable results.
My point about capitalism is its essential instability. (That's an empirical not a theoretical statement. One need not be a Marxist to make it.)
I believe someone either on this or the pen-l list has argued that capitalism can exist without growth. As I understand Marx that is impossible.
How long do you think the habitability of the globe (at least for any kind of industrial society) can last with continued growth?
What are the political forces that could control growth (actually, reverse it) within the present economic and political structures? I see none.
I don't like "localism" any more than you do, and I am convinced as well that "localists" can never develop the political forces to put their "vision" into practice. BUT their ideas do not drop from the sky or spring from mere "romanticism" (that's a silly term anyhow) but are in response to their perception of the (unavoidable) destructive nature of continued industrial growth. Moreover, they assume that the present will continue while it doesn't continue. (I don't know any better way to express it.) But you can't just dismiss them with a sneer.
Take the long view. The sun in a few billion years will go nova. Living conditions will probably disappear earlier. There will someday be a final human generation. Eventually, why not now?
Carrol