One of the most persistent talking points in Marxist circles — and among their fellow‑travellers in academia, activism, and the bureaucratic class — is the claim that capitalism supposedly promises “endless growth.” According to this myth, economists and capitalists are engaged in a kind of metaphysical delusion, imagining that markets will expand forever until the planet melts, the seas boil, and Jeff Bezos personally blocks out the sun.
It’s a neat story. It’s also completely false.
Capitalism does not promise endless growth. Capitalism promises freedom of exchange — and that’s it.
Everything else is a by‑product.
Everything else is a by‑product.
Capitalism’s “Promise” Is Not Growth — It’s Freedom
Capitalism is simply the system in which:
- individuals may trade voluntarily
- prices emerge from supply and demand
- innovation is rewarded
- failure is allowed
- and no central planner dictates what must be produced
Growth happens because free people tend to invent things, solve problems, and create value. Growth slows when they don’t. Growth reverses when they make mistakes.
Capitalism is not a prophecy. It is a process.
If Capitalism Promised Endless Growth, Recessions Would Be Impossible
Reality, however, is stubborn.
- Recessions happen.
- Depressions happen.
- Booms turn to busts.
- Entire industries collapse.
- Long‑established companies die.
If capitalism were built on a doctrine of “endless growth,” these events would be catastrophic contradictions. Instead, they are normal. They are part of the creative destruction that Joseph Schumpeter identified as the beating heart of market dynamism.
Capitalism does not guarantee growth. It guarantees the freedom to try — and the freedom to fail.
Marxists, by contrast, guarantee nothing except shortages, queues, and a suspiciously high number of “temporary” emergency powers.
Where the Real “Endless Growth” Myth Actually Lives
Ironically, the only institution that behaves as if endless growth is guaranteed is not the market; it’s the government.
Take New Zealand’s Inland Revenue Department (IRD). When forecasting provincial tax revenue, they often assume a tidy, predictable increase — say, 5% more than last year. Not because the economy will necessarily grow by 5%, but because the spreadsheet needs a number and the bureaucracy needs a justification.
This is the closest thing to a genuine doctrine of endless growth: a government department quietly assuming it into existence so the budget balances.
Capitalists don’t promise endless growth. Governments budget as if it’s inevitable.
Why Marxists Need the Myth
The “endless growth” accusation is not an economic argument. It is a rhetorical weapon. It serves three purposes:
1. It paints capitalism as naïve and unsustainable
If capitalism is supposedly built on a fantasy, then Marxism can pose as the sober, realistic alternative.
2. It reframes economic success as a flaw
If living standards rise, Marxists can say, “Ah, but this growth is unsustainable.” If living standards fall, Marxists can say, “See? Capitalism is collapsing.”
Heads they win, tails you lose.
3. It distracts from Marxism’s own failed predictions
Marxism promised:
- the inevitable collapse of capitalism
- the inevitable rise of the proletariat
- the inevitable triumph of socialism
- the inevitable withering away of the State
It’s projection, pure and simple.
Capitalism Doesn’t Need Endless Growth — It Needs Freedom
Capitalism works because:
- people want to improve their lives
- innovation is rewarded
- competition drives efficiency
- prices convey information
- risk and reward are aligned
- failure clears out dead wood
If growth slows, capitalism adapts. If growth stops, capitalism restructures. If growth reverses, capitalism corrects.
The system is resilient precisely because it does not depend on a single, utopian trajectory.
Marxism, by contrast, collapses the moment its predictions fail — which is why Marxists spend so much time rewriting history and redefining success.
The Real Question
The real question is not whether capitalism promises endless growth. It doesn’t.
The real question is:
Why do Marxists keep insisting that it does?
Because if they admitted the truth — that capitalism is simply the freedom to exchange, innovate, and adapt — then their entire critique would evaporate. They need capitalism to be a delusional ideology so that Marxism can pose as the cure.
But capitalism is not an ideology. It is a decentralised discovery process.
It does not promise endless growth. It promises the freedom to pursue it.
And that freedom has lifted more people out of poverty than any ideology in human history.
Colinxy regularly blogs at No Minister, This article was sourced HERE
11 comments:
Nevertheless, I keep reading about how we need to grow the population and how we need to grow the economy. Yet we live in a finite world, so growth cannot continue forever. The claim that “Capitalism Doesn’t Need Endless Growth — It Needs Freedom” is as mistaken as anything the Marxists have put up.
Capitalists need Marxism to be a delusional ideology so that capitalism can pose as the cure. Instead, capitalism has delivered a burgeoning population which we are now discovering the world cannot sustain. The threat now is that billions will die trapped in cities without food or water.
We still need regulation, but regulation of the right sort. We need to ditch capitalism and Marxism as opposing irrational ideologies and instead embrace, develop and advance rationalism.
Re: Barrie Davis, it is an oversimplification to claim that Marxism and capitalism are "opposing ideologies". Marxism is a governmental paradigm while capitalism is an economic one. Marxism brings the economy under political control so there is such a thing as a Marxist economy as well as a Marxism government, but there is no such thing as a 'capitalist government'.
I would like to see some justification for the assertion that "capitalism has delivered a burgeoning population which we are now discovering the world cannot sustain." Birth rates appear to be more associated with development status than with system of governance. Birth rates in socialist and non-socialist more developed countries both crashed beginning in the 1960s. Urbanisation is likewise associated more with developmental status.
With regard to the above posts, the highest birth rates are to be seen in sub-Saharan Africa (according to Google and AI), and if any of the countries involved could be classed as having capitalist economies then some definitions need to be re-written. Many, if not all of the countries concerned are rich in resources which are either being squandered by a small elite or not extracted at all, to the detriment of the majority of the population. I am reading Paul Theroux's 'The Last train to Zona Verde' and he makes these points clearly.
1) It is a fact that capitalism and Marxism are opposing ideologies, irrespective of their genesis, and this article is an instance of that.
2) The world population has been increased primarily by Western capitalist facilitated science and technology, and considering individual countries is not relevant.
Re: Barrie Davis,
(1) Repeating a flawed assertion as a response to a valid criticism reflects poorly on the party making the claim. "It's a fact" says he pompously, end of story. No, it isn't. One is a governmental paradigm and the other is an economic one. They overlap, but they cannot be said to be diametrically opposed.
(2) The populations of developing countries began increasing after colonisation because of lifestyle changes such as the abandonment of traditional polygamy, the move to a cash-based domestic economy, urbanisation, and a few other things, but certainly not "Western capitalist facilitated science and technology", at least not until well into the 20thC. Considering individual countries is not relevant, says he. Really? Where do we get demographic data from, for Pete's sake? Mr Davis would appear to be out of his depth here.
I have said this before ... We occupy a World that is akin to a Petri dish in that it had a finite amount of non-renewable resource and so any thought of infinite growth in such a closed system is utterly stupid. The World, not just NZ, is up against the Limits to Growth as these are well and truly kicking in. When it comes to rocks and hard places it is germane to cite what was said by the Vogons in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and the Borg in Star Trek: "Resistance is futile". Couple the obliviousness to this real world issue, one that is not going away, with PM Luxon having played silly beggars with the Treaty Principles Bill and all things to do with Maorification/co-governance, we are truly in the pooh. Anyone who read and understood the 1970's Limits to Growth should know. A look at the 2023 recalibration shows clearly that World Industrial Output has hit the Seneca cliff along with World Food Production. Dealing with this will require a very hard look at how NZ's revenue is used and pouring it into the black holes such as the Waitangi Tribunal wrangling and the grievance industry must be stopped completely. Our Government needs to consider and act on what is going to keep NZ fed and watered because all the frilly stuff is a pointless waste. The Green's 'solutions' are pure la-la land as they prattle on about using more non-renewables. To chuck in another saying "When you're up to your neck in alligators, it is hard to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp". Oh, and making more humans when we have too many already is another folly!
Yes, it is a matter of fact that this article posits capitalism and Marxism as opposing ideologies, and other instances abound, leading to my generalization. The problem is that they are then treated in a manner akin to sport and team rivalry. My point is that we need to instead consider specific issues rationally.
In an above comment, I said “It is a fact that capitalism and Marxism are opposing ideologies” and Barend Vlaardingerbroek replied “One is a governmental paradigm and the other is an economic one. They overlap, but they cannot be said to be diametrically opposed.”
However, the Oxford Concise gives the meaning of ideology as, “a system of ideas and ideals forming the basis of an economic or political theory.” They are thus both ideas which can be compared, irrespective of their genesis, and when compared, they may be found to be contrasting, conflicting or opposing.
This article claims that “Capitalists need Marxism to be a delusional ideology so that capitalism can pose as the cure.” I take that to mean they are contrasting, conflicting or opposing and I have read many other similar comments elsewhere. I therefore conclude that capitalism and Marxism are generally considered to be opposing ideologies.
Barend Vlaardingerbroek despises in others that which he has reason to fear in himself.
I'll confess to being a bit on the pedantic side, but without clear definitions as to what words mean, discussion becomes rather tedious and often pointless.
What this particular article says is not authoritative with regard to what the terms mean. Let's face it, most people talk about socialism and capitalism as though they were opposites on the same spectrum, which they are not.
Marxism has a much wider conceptual scope than capitalism. So I maintain that the two are not diametric opposites.
Now, speaking of waxing pedantic, what was that you were claiming about human population that I commented on earlier........?
PS From the on-line Oxford:
Marxism: the political and economic theories of Karl Marx (1818–83) which explain the changes and developments in society as the result of opposition between the social classes.
Capitalism: an economic system in which a country’s businesses and industry are controlled and run for profit by private owners rather than by the government.
To labour the point, they overlap, but the scope of Marxism is much wider than just the economy. The two terms are not polar opposites.
Most attempts by apologists for capitalism to refute Marxism are a mixture of ignorance and bad faith, and this article by Colinxy is replete with both.
The chief thing which characterizes apologetic economics like Colinxy's is a lack of historical imagination. Capitalism is seen as the best of all possible worlds, the highest form of economic organization, instead of just one particular mode of production in the history of human society that, like other modes, had a beginning and will have an end.
More specifically in relation to Colinxy's article: it is not true that Marxism predicts the "inevitable" collapse of capitalism and the "inevitable" triumph of socialism. It merely holds that the development of material conditions under capitalism (the tremendous growth of productive forces, the proletarianization of an increasing proportion of the world's population, the socialization and centralization of production on a national and international scale) have made possible the transition to a higher form of economic organization. But possible is not inevitable. If the working classes of the world prove incapable of taking political power out of the hands of their respective ruling classes, the rulers' intensifying rivalries could plunge humanity into a new, civilization-ending world war. A great Marxist, Rosa Luxemburg, summed up this dilemma in her famous aphorism "Socialism or Barbarism."
Nor is it true that Marxists claim that capitalism promises "endless" growth. It does hold under capitalism that there are powerful forces pushing growth, or the accumulation of capital as Marxists might also put it. And not just the greed for wealth of individual capitalists (although most capitalists are greedy). Competition among capitalist producers forces them to adopt newer and better technology and to try to achieve economies of scale in order to lower unit costs, leading to increases in both labour productivity and the scale of production. The increased weight of machinery in production relative to living labour, the sole source of value, lowers the rate of profit (an uneven but persistent decline in the rate of profit can be observed over the history of the capitalist mode of production since its early days to the present), driving capitalists to compensate by expanding production to increase the mass of profits.
Of course, the analysis above depends on an acceptance of the law of labour value, abandoned by bourgeois economists in the course of the nineteenth century for largely ideological reasons, despite the fact the founding fathers of their discipline like Adam Smith and David Ricardo upheld it. Marxists see labour, the activity by which humans produce and organize their material lives in interaction with the material world, as the essence of economics. Since the rise of class society, ruling classes in various forms of society have existed by expropriating the surplus labour product of the producers (surplus in the sense of being in excess of what was necessary to keep the producers alive). Under the slave mode of production this process of exploitation was transparent, as it was under feudalism (three days working on your own plot of land, three days working on the lord's estate.) Under capitalism it is not so obvious. Do workers not sell their labour to capitalists at its value in a fair exchange? It was Marx's greatest contribution to economic science that he was able to explain this conundrum by distinguishing between labour and labour power, and showing that workers can reproduce the value of their labour power, in say five hours of a ten-hour working day, and then continue labouring to produce a surplus value for the capitalist in the remaining five hours.
If you understand the law of labour value, you can also see from another perspective why the capitalist mode of production cannot last. It is incompatible with a fully automated society. No living labour in the production process, no surplus value - capitalism's life blood - produced, no capitalism. Even Elon Musk in his own way gets this.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.