Growth Critique in the 1970s Crisis and Today: Malthusianism, Social Mechanics, and Labor Discipline. Markantonatou, M. New Political Science, 38(1):23–43, January, 2016. 00000![Growth Critique in the 1970s Crisis and Today: Malthusianism, Social Mechanics, and Labor Discipline [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex This article examines the perspective on labor in two critiques of “growth” as elaborated in the context of two capitalist crises: the Keynesian model of industrial development in the 1970s, and the neoliberal finance capitalist growth model of today. A landmark event for the first critique was the publication of the “Limits to Growth” report, and for the second the emergence of the “degrowth” theoretical current. Both critiques have a Malthusian point of departure, and their view on overpopulation is accordingly discussed. Comparison between them shows that despite their ecological and supposedly socially and politically neutral point of departure, both bodies of critique examined here—that of the 1970s and the contemporary one—prescribe for labor the obligation of social discipline and acceptance of labor-market insecurity, along with the undermining of welfare rights. First, I argue that there is no such thing as an ahistorical critique of growth, but only critiques of different, case- specific models of growth in each particular instance. Second, I argue that the idea of a steady-state economy that predominates in growth critical programs is incompatible with the process of expansion and continual enlargement inherent to capitalism. Finally, I argue that, in the framework of two different crises, both critiques of growth promoted a vision of social pacification and, on the basis of ecological arguments, justified the preservation of capitalist power relations.
@article{markantonatou_growth_2016,
title = {Growth {Critique} in the 1970s {Crisis} and {Today}: {Malthusianism}, {Social} {Mechanics}, and {Labor} {Discipline}},
volume = {38},
issn = {0739-3148, 1469-9931},
shorttitle = {Growth {Critique} in the 1970s {Crisis} and {Today}},
url = {http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07393148.2015.1125117},
doi = {10.1080/07393148.2015.1125117},
abstract = {This article examines the perspective on labor in two critiques of
“growth” as elaborated in the context of two capitalist crises: the
Keynesian model of industrial development in the 1970s, and the
neoliberal finance capitalist growth model of today. A landmark event
for the first critique was the publication of the “Limits to Growth”
report, and for the second the emergence of the “degrowth” theoretical
current. Both critiques have a Malthusian point of departure, and
their view on overpopulation is accordingly discussed. Comparison
between them shows that despite their ecological and supposedly
socially and politically neutral point of departure, both bodies of
critique examined here—that of the 1970s and the contemporary
one—prescribe for labor the obligation of social discipline and
acceptance of labor-market insecurity, along with the undermining
of welfare rights. First, I argue that there is no such thing as an
ahistorical critique of growth, but only critiques of different, case-
specific models of growth in each particular instance. Second, I argue
that the idea of a steady-state economy that predominates in growth
critical programs is incompatible with the process of expansion and
continual enlargement inherent to capitalism. Finally, I argue that,
in the framework of two different crises, both critiques of growth
promoted a vision of social pacification and, on the basis of ecological
arguments, justified the preservation of capitalist power relations.},
language = {en},
number = {1},
urldate = {2016-12-15},
journal = {New Political Science},
author = {Markantonatou, Maria},
month = jan,
year = {2016},
note = {00000},
keywords = {collapse, contrarian, limits-to-growth},
pages = {23--43},
file = {Markantonatou - 2016 - Growth Critique in the 1970s Crisis and Today Mal.pdf:C\:\\Users\\rsrs\\Documents\\Zotero Database\\storage\\JEBF6797\\Markantonatou - 2016 - Growth Critique in the 1970s Crisis and Today Mal.pdf:application/pdf}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"RQqaRZ22emv3igWEi","bibbaseid":"markantonatou-growthcritiqueinthe1970scrisisandtodaymalthusianismsocialmechanicsandlabordiscipline-2016","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Markantonatou, M."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Growth Critique in the 1970s Crisis and Today: Malthusianism, Social Mechanics, and Labor Discipline","volume":"38","issn":"0739-3148, 1469-9931","shorttitle":"Growth Critique in the 1970s Crisis and Today","url":"http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07393148.2015.1125117","doi":"10.1080/07393148.2015.1125117","abstract":"This article examines the perspective on labor in two critiques of “growth” as elaborated in the context of two capitalist crises: the Keynesian model of industrial development in the 1970s, and the neoliberal finance capitalist growth model of today. A landmark event for the first critique was the publication of the “Limits to Growth” report, and for the second the emergence of the “degrowth” theoretical current. Both critiques have a Malthusian point of departure, and their view on overpopulation is accordingly discussed. Comparison between them shows that despite their ecological and supposedly socially and politically neutral point of departure, both bodies of critique examined here—that of the 1970s and the contemporary one—prescribe for labor the obligation of social discipline and acceptance of labor-market insecurity, along with the undermining of welfare rights. First, I argue that there is no such thing as an ahistorical critique of growth, but only critiques of different, case- specific models of growth in each particular instance. Second, I argue that the idea of a steady-state economy that predominates in growth critical programs is incompatible with the process of expansion and continual enlargement inherent to capitalism. Finally, I argue that, in the framework of two different crises, both critiques of growth promoted a vision of social pacification and, on the basis of ecological arguments, justified the preservation of capitalist power relations.","language":"en","number":"1","urldate":"2016-12-15","journal":"New Political Science","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Markantonatou"],"firstnames":["Maria"],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"January","year":"2016","note":"00000","keywords":"collapse, contrarian, limits-to-growth","pages":"23–43","file":"Markantonatou - 2016 - Growth Critique in the 1970s Crisis and Today Mal.pdf:C\\:\\\\Users\\s̊rs\\\\Documents\\\\Zotero Database\\\\storage\\\\JEBF6797\\\\Markantonatou - 2016 - Growth Critique in the 1970s Crisis and Today Mal.pdf:application/pdf","bibtex":"@article{markantonatou_growth_2016,\n\ttitle = {Growth {Critique} in the 1970s {Crisis} and {Today}: {Malthusianism}, {Social} {Mechanics}, and {Labor} {Discipline}},\n\tvolume = {38},\n\tissn = {0739-3148, 1469-9931},\n\tshorttitle = {Growth {Critique} in the 1970s {Crisis} and {Today}},\n\turl = {http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07393148.2015.1125117},\n\tdoi = {10.1080/07393148.2015.1125117},\n\tabstract = {This article examines the perspective on labor in two critiques of \n“growth” as elaborated in the context of two capitalist crises: the \nKeynesian model of industrial development in the 1970s, and the \nneoliberal finance capitalist growth model of today. A landmark event \nfor the first critique was the publication of the “Limits to Growth” \nreport, and for the second the emergence of the “degrowth” theoretical \ncurrent. Both critiques have a Malthusian point of departure, and \ntheir view on overpopulation is accordingly discussed. Comparison \nbetween them shows that despite their ecological and supposedly \nsocially and politically neutral point of departure, both bodies of \ncritique examined here—that of the 1970s and the contemporary \none—prescribe for labor the obligation of social discipline and \nacceptance of labor-market insecurity, along with the undermining \nof welfare rights. First, I argue that there is no such thing as an \nahistorical critique of growth, but only critiques of different, case-\nspecific models of growth in each particular instance. Second, I argue \nthat the idea of a steady-state economy that predominates in growth \ncritical programs is incompatible with the process of expansion and \ncontinual enlargement inherent to capitalism. Finally, I argue that, \nin the framework of two different crises, both critiques of growth \npromoted a vision of social pacification and, on the basis of ecological \narguments, justified the preservation of capitalist power relations.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2016-12-15},\n\tjournal = {New Political Science},\n\tauthor = {Markantonatou, Maria},\n\tmonth = jan,\n\tyear = {2016},\n\tnote = {00000},\n\tkeywords = {collapse, contrarian, limits-to-growth},\n\tpages = {23--43},\n\tfile = {Markantonatou - 2016 - Growth Critique in the 1970s Crisis and Today Mal.pdf:C\\:\\\\Users\\\\rsrs\\\\Documents\\\\Zotero Database\\\\storage\\\\JEBF6797\\\\Markantonatou - 2016 - Growth Critique in the 1970s Crisis and Today Mal.pdf:application/pdf}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Markantonatou, M."],"key":"markantonatou_growth_2016","id":"markantonatou_growth_2016","bibbaseid":"markantonatou-growthcritiqueinthe1970scrisisandtodaymalthusianismsocialmechanicsandlabordiscipline-2016","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07393148.2015.1125117"},"keyword":["collapse","contrarian","limits-to-growth"],"downloads":0,"html":""},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://www.collapsologie.fr/bib.bib","creationDate":"2019-06-13T15:56:08.080Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["collapse","contrarian","limits-to-growth"],"search_terms":["growth","critique","1970s","crisis","today","malthusianism","social","mechanics","labor","discipline","markantonatou"],"title":"Growth Critique in the 1970s Crisis and Today: Malthusianism, Social Mechanics, and Labor Discipline","year":2016,"dataSources":["97shAbFSxL7A7SHoh"]}