So there is a kind of circular argument I want to expose. Neoclassical economists & neoliberal ideologues have successfully argued for a social consensus around economic growth on the basis that growth => social progress (healthcare, poverty reduction, rise in living standards).

Now this argument falls apart when it's scrutinized by empirical research: Piketty showed that growth leads to increases in inequality, Preston showed that growth can't account for increases in life expectancy, everyone has shown that growth leads to planetary breakdown. 2/

If/when growth has accompanies social progress, this is not BECAUSE of economic growth: it's because of successful social struggle (unions, political battles, historical upheaval involving destruction of capital, like world wars ...). That part tends to be erased from memory. 3/

And there is systemic research into political economy (also Piketty, but many others incl Marxian/ecological/degrowth/feminist/decolonial economists) demonstrating that growth arises from extractive & exploitative pursuit of wealth accumulation. Fine. 4/

But still, here we are, with this ossified social consensus around growth dominating our politics and policy. The part I want to argue against is the left-wing sort of knee jerk response that we should argue for social progress on the grounds that progress => growth. 5/

Social progress is what we get when we fight for it, growth be damned. We should be arguing and demanding social progress on its own, unapologetic grounds, not on the basis that it's possibly compatible with ever more wealth accumulation for the wealthy. 6/

We've been held hostage by these ideas for too long. Arguing on the terrain of the other side is something we should really avoid doing. So just remember: growth =/=> progress, and social progress is worthy in its own right, and should be advocated for regardless of growth. End/