As Daniel suggests, my understanding of the problem of measuring the state and growth of the "productive forces" is more in line with #2 below.
#1 is along the lines of a gedanken experiment: how well can someone produce (fill in the blank with the name of some physical item) now, compared to a hundred years ago? The problem with that experiment is that it's hard to do in practice (which is what matters). This is especially difficult if you consider that Daniel's gedanken experiment might be saying that nowadays we are much more able to contribute to global warming than we used to be. That is, external costs & benefits are crucial even if we think about physical productivity. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -----Original Message----- > From: Davies, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 7:35 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: [PEN-L:23342] RE: Question to Various comments in In > Digest 77 > > > This does seem like an interesting fundamental disagreement > on the meaning > of the "productive forces". We've basically got two views here: > > 1) Charles' and mine, that production is a physical process. > As Charles > said, one measure of the productive forces which allows the > term to be given > sense independently of any assumptions about social relations > would simply > be the physical concept of "work" (roughly speaking, the > ability to transfer > energy). You could envision a theory in which state of > development of "the > productive forces" was measured by the highest temperature to > which one > million randomly selected members of the human race, socially > organised in > any which way, could raise a metric tonne of water from 0 > degrees Centigrade > in one hour; this would obviously be a bit of a strange > definition, but it > has the advantage of, as far as I can tell, being > monotonically increasing > in whatever the underlying variable of "human development" > might be. On > this view, the invention of fire would be a big step forward for the > productive forces, the wheel, inclined plane and lever a few more, > electricity another one, and nuclear energy another big one > (anything that > helps you get energy from one place to another basically). > > My half-baked ramblings about "the complexity of arbitrary > physical objects" > were an attempt to suggest that it's possible to keep the > flavour of the > energy transfer view of the productive forces, while making > it a bit more > realistic in terms of matching actual human development. On > this view, > precision tools would have been a step forward, as would > computers, etc. If > the development of the productive forces is at the level > where the most > complex object you can produce is a cell-phone (with > "complex" hopefully to > be defined in some objective way along the lines of Shannon's > information > theory; one measure might be the maximum surface area of an > object which > could be repeatably produced and placed into a one foot > cube.), then an > improvement in silicon technology which allows you to produce > a *smaller* > cell-phone is an increase in the productive forces (because > you could also > use this increase to produce non-cellphone objects which were > previously > inaccessible if you wanted to), whereas the use of economies > of scale or a > more efficient cellphone design which allows you to produce *cheaper* > cellphones is not an increase in the productive forces > (because it doesn't > allow you to change your mind and produce anything you > couldn't produce > before). > > I like this view because it allows the questions of > technology, organisation > of production and consumption to be separated analytically. > But I also see > the case for: > > 2) Eric's (and Jim's?) view, that technology, organisation > of production > and consumption can't be separated in this way, and that > because production > has to be production of goods that people want, it can't be > measured outside > the context of a particular social organisation. I think (would be > interested in comments) that this might actually go so far as > to imply that > measurement of the state of the productive forces might only > be possible > using market prices, along the lines of Kuznets' GDP concept. This > emphasises the idea that the value of an "arbitrary physical > object" is > determined socially. > > So it all seems to come down to the question of whether "the > productive > forces" are to be understood as "the forces producing value" > or "the forces > producing things". I don't know enough about Marx to be sure > about this > one, but I think Cohen's version of historical materialism is based on > something like 1) above. > > dd > > > ___________________________________________________ > Email Disclaimer > > This communication is for the attention of the > named recipient only and should not be passed > on to any other person. Information relating to > any company or security, is for information > purposes only and should not be interpreted as > a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. > The information on which this communication is based > has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, > but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. > All expressions of opinion are subject to change > without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, > are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful > business purposes. > ___________________________________________________ >
