capitalism and eternal growth

[anvi]

I've only read a handful of books on economics on my own and never studied it formally, so if the following doesn't make sense, there would be no surprise in it.  But I've assumed for a while, based on reading a book by Heilbroner ages ago, that "capital" is something like "money in use," that is to say, money that is being used to make more money through the production and sale of goods, investment and so on.  So the intention of the employment of "capital" is thus by definition to achieve growth, even though 1.) growth doesn't always happen and 2.) an economy may very well continue to be "capitalist" without growth or with contraction, so long as the cycle of investment-production-reinvestment is continuing.  But "capitalism," an economic framework in which institutions are systematically designed for such an employment of "capital," can exist under a number of different economic and political configurations.  Mixed economies can be "capitalist," as can state-run economies as can laissez-faire economies, insofar as they all exhibit different relationships between the state and markets, but all would rely on "capital" in various ways relative to, for example, their valuations of different kinds of "goods," different degrees of market regulation and so on.  So, i suppose, the OP is really about whether a relatively laissez-faire capitalist system that suffers from prolonged stagnation or contraction can continue to be viable.  But then, in principle, I think that question could be raised for any economic system that suffered from long-term stagnation or contraction. Everything from minor adjustments to major changes are often necessary in stagnating economies.  The same approach to things doesn't work under all conceivable or actual circumstances.