is it "oncocapitalism" or just "oncapitalism"?*

It increasingly appears as though Edward Abbey had it right about "growth for the sake of growth." And, of course, it makes sense economically also, for where can the so-called externalities efficiently be disregarded within a system that encompasses all?

The big battle that we have in this world is not between Germany and the other Europeans, is not between South and North, China and Germany, or so. The big battle is still, believe it or not, the battle between labor and capital. This is still the big battle.

. . . I tell you, what happens in this world is class warfare.

For the first time . . . in modern history since the second world war . . . we are two years in a recovery and in the United States the . . . nominal wages are rising by absolutely zero. They're not rising at all. We have . . . not only a job-less recovery -- that's a normal thing -- for the first time we have in the United States a wage-less recovery. Wage-less recovery.

. . . It will end in disaster because, if you do not have a regime that allows the systematic participation of workers in the productivity increase . . . capitalism hits dramatically a wall, because no economy can grow successfully if the people only have to rely on bubbles -- that sooner or later burst -- to consume, and if they do not, cannot expect that they will participate in the success of all.

-- recent remarks of UNCTAD, Director of Globalization and Development Policy, Dr. Heiner Flassbeck (at about 15:44), via The Real News: