Global Journal of Human Social Science, E: Economics, Volume 21 Issue 5

economic growth, then economic growth, by providing the accumulation of capital, is the mainstay of the capitalist economy. For Fotopoulos (2007), the degrowth project represents a dialectical junction between anti-systemic and reformist movements, which results in the construction of a critical view, which does not advocate the abolition of the market economy system, but which proposes to reduce its scope. According to Latouche (2007) Drastically reducing environmental damage does mean losing the monetary value in the material goods. But it does not necessarily mean ceasing to create value through non- material products. In part, this could keep their market forms. Though the market and profit can still be incentives, the system must no longer revolve around them. (LATOUCHE, 2007 apud FOTOPOULOS, 2007). However, according to Fotopoulos (2007), although the proponents of this view believe in the compatibility between de-growth and the perpetuation of capitalism, it should be remembered that modern society is strongly based on maximizing economic growth for its reproduction. This is basically based on two fundamental elements, namely, production and consumption. First, with regard to production, it seems clear that the dynamics of a market economy imply a constant expansion of production so that profits are maximized. It would be contradictory, therefore, to consider a market economy based on non-growth, not only because there would be great resistance from transnational companies, which would move from countries that adopt this type of program, but also because of the simple fact that the economy market is incompatible with zero growth. It does not mean, however, that there could not be a zero-growth society. What is meant is that, given the existence of the capitalist mode of production, it would be impossible to keep it running without one of its main engines, economic growth. (Fotopoulos, 2007). On the other hand, when consumption is considered, it is clear that its decrease is extremely undesirable, as it would represent a necessary counterpart for carrying out long and stressful working hours. A forced reduction in consumption would represent for society, therefore, a deprivation in relation to one of the elements that justifies the perpetuation of the market society, namely, consumerism. (Fotopoulos, 2007). For this author, the incompatibility between de- growth and capitalism would become clear from the historical analysis and investigation of the system dynamics. If there is no market economy system that has not been based on maximizing economic growth, then it must be assumed that de-growth could not be constituted as a mere change in the values of society and that, moreover, it could not coexist with a market system. Fotopoulos (2007) also presents the proposals of the de-growth program and what would be its impacts within a capitalist system. Starting with the proposal to bring material production back to the levels of the 1960s and 1970s, which would lead to a dramatic increase in unemployment and poverty among the most vulnerable social groups . 8 8 Knowing that the volume of capital has multiplied several times since the 1970s, then the question to be asked is: with such a large reduction in production, what would happen to this volume of capital? A part of it would not find alternatives to continue its accumulation process, resulting in acute economic crises. Second, the internalization of transport costs, which would transform private and air transport modes into luxury goods accessible only to the wealthier classes. Third, the return to small-scale agricultural production, which would increase food prices, once again affecting the poorest groups. Finally, reducing energy waste by three quarters through the use of a tax system, which could reduce material and energy costs, but at the same time increase material consumption. As Trainer (2010) points out, if effective efforts were made to combat the negative effects of growth, the required action should be so drastic and widespread, that a new type of system, other than the market, would emerge. On the other hand, the proposals developed by the advocates of de-growth would cause a dramatic reduction in business, which, apart from being intolerable on the part of large companies, would not be achieved without major state regulation. Another important consequence of a zero- growth economy, according to Trainer (2010), refers to the non-existence of interest payments. In the absence of this element, the existence of only a fixed and stable amount of capital would be necessary, so that the investment would be put into operation just to face the depreciation. In this scenario, the government would be incapable of implementing monetary policy, having to stimulate the economy through indiscriminate and coercive decisions, approaching a type of planned control. Furthermore, there would be no need for the creation of money, as a constant amount would be sufficient to carry out the purchase and sale transactions. In this way, the banking market would be dramatically transformed, as they would be unable to create new currency. (Trainer, 2010). Finally, given that in the current economic system, growth is essential to prevent unemployment from growing, considering the constant technological advances, in a zero-growth economy a constant amount of product would only be achieved at the expense of a reduction in the workforce. (Trainer, 2010). Volume XXI Issue V Version I 53 ( E ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2021 © 2021 Global Journals Economic De-Growth: A Theoretical and Critical Review