I find the growth framework problematic as I've said but I'm not sure any of anti-degrowth people even know what growth is...In capitalism, growth is defined in terms of output, GDP. It's essentially a function of productivity x number of workers. 1/ GDP counts a lot of stuff a Marxist wouldn't--for example, much output is unproductive. It exists to reproduce the commodity form, pay cops, etc. 2/

I like Kohei Saito's Marx in the Anthropocene quite a bit. I was convinced by most of its Marxological arguments: it makes the best case for dualism of any of the arguments I've read, and though I still think there's a fair amount that feels semantic there's also a real point. 1/ I find the reading of the Crit. of the Gotha Program at the end particularly problematic, however, and especially its defense of individual property within the communal form (which I assume just means labor vouchers). The problem here stems from his advocacy of a steady state 2/

What I think about un/productive labor is this. The concept is clear as day as long as one understands it as heuristic and normative--ie, this world seen from the standpoint of communism. Unproductive are all those labor that would be logically impossible under communism /1 Which is to say, labors whose only purpose is to reproduce the commodity form (formwechsel). But this concept can't be operationalized or made empirical today because these formal transformations are, in fact, bound up with the material tranformations in capitalism. 2/