Surely the basic fetter upon production under capitalism is the need to make
a profit. There is no lack of materials, or skills,
to produce in a manner that meets the basic food and shelter needs of those
who have not the wherewithal to satisfy these needs within a capitalist
economy. Production for profit and in accordance with effective demand
rather than for need is a basic fetter. This fetter is part and parcel of
the contradiction between the relations of productions and productive forces
mentioned by Yoshie in her 1st point. Why would the contradiction continue
at all under socialism? There would be constraints placed upon production by
scarcity of materials and degree of development of skills, and technology
etc. but that would seem a different type, albeit an important fetter both
within any system.
Just to add a couple of observations with respect to Yoshies second
point. Much production under capitalism is directed to satisfaction of
needs that are really not significant in contributing to human happiness and
welfare and which does not factor in the total "costs" to the environment.
Under a socialist democratically planned economy there should be much less
production of this type. The concept of sustainable development seems more
relevant that that of zero growth. Sustainable growth may
be zero growth of even a shrinkage, but even with a shrinkage the forces of
production could very well be used to more fully satisfy social needs than
capitalism does at present. It is not so much a matter of quality as
distribution on the basis of need rather than on money income.
CHeers, Ken Hanly
----- Original Message -----
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 3:35 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:4532] Capitalism = Fetters on "Growth"? (was Re: Beyond the
Summary ofNader analysis)
> From James Heartfield to John Gulick:
>
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> >>How about a program of zero economic growth ?
> >
> >With a considerable part of the world mired in poverty, zero economic
> >growth seems like a convenient way for the affluent West to secure its
> >own economic advantage for all time.
>
> That is true, James, to the extent that neoliberalism has been a
> program of slow growth for all (with a possible exception of some
> sectors of rich nations, esp. the USA) and de-industrialization &
> de-modernization for many (especially for many ex-socialist citizens
> as well as those under the harshest regimens of the SAPs).
>
> >The problem with capitalism is not that it grows too fast, but that it
> >puts chains on the further development of the forces of production.
>
> Does capitalism put "chains on the further development of the forces
> of production"? In what sense?
>
> Some thoughts on so-called "fetters":
>
> 1. One might argue, as Ellen Wood (drawing on Robert Brenner, Karl
> Polanyi, etc.) does, that the dialectic of forces of production and
> relations of production (with the latter acting as fetters for the
> former) is one unique to the capitalist mode of production, with its
> logic of M-C-M' which entails market compulsion to innovation (do or
> die, prosper or go bankrupt) & creative destruction; this dialectic
> is not useful for explaining, for instance, the transition from
> feudalism to capitalism -- nor should it predominate an emancipated
> future under socialism.
>
> 2. Does "the further development of the forces of production" equal
> "economic growth"? The former must be equated with the latter only
> under capitalism, it seems to me. For instance, under capitalism,
> rates of productivity growth have to outpace rises in wages, in order
> for capitalists to make profits while buying off an important section
> of the international working class. Such concerns will be
> meaningless under socialism. If we get to abolish capitalism, I
> think we'll be able to rethink "the further development of the forces
> of production" in qualitative, not quantitative, terms. Instead of
> being slaves to "more" in the abstract, we'll know the meanings of
> "enough," "different," "beautiful," etc. in the "fullness of time."
> If we want "more" of some (though not all) goods & services under
> socialism, it will be because of _our conscious & collective
> decision_, not because of subjection to M-C-M'.
>
> 3. Under capitalism, there will always be a relative surplus
> population (not surplus to the mythical "carrying capacity" of the
> earth, but surplus to the requirements of capitalist production).
> Under capitalism, the majority of women in the world cannot
> emancipate themselves, facing, among others, barriers against
> achieving full control of their reproductive destiny. Hence the
> sterile debate between heirs of Malthus & Condorcet. Hence the
> so-called "population" problems. Hence the need for constant &
> compulsive growth. Under socialism, we can move beyond the
> Malthus-Condorcet debate, so no need for compulsion to grow, grow,
> grow.
>
> Workers of the world, unite, & take it easy....
>
> Yoshie
>
