On 2002.03.01 10:54 PM, "Hari Kumar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A number of comments discuss the fact the the societal values placed > upon 'productive forces' varies and thus there is no single barometer of > that, as put by Eric here: > "Productive forces must produce "what people want." And what people want > > changes over time and cannot be tracked by "arbitrary physical objects." > > Eric goes on to say: > " If one class becomes convinced that the existing tools, machines, and > equipment fail to produce "what they want," then they might come to see > that the existing forces of production are insufficient for their needs. > And, perhaps, they might act to alter both the forces of production and > the social relations of production (recognizing that FoP and SRP > codetermine each other)." > And someone sue the analogy of cell phones. > Am I again being too naive by asking whether to focus on a single > commodity like a cell phone misses the more general point - that a > technical advance capable of making a cell phone is then automatically > linked and plays into a host of related technical advnces- > computers/stellites/recordign information/ etc? > Does not one particular technical advance - precipitate or move in > tandem with - a host of related such techncial forces that - pushes the > overall societal 'capability'? I think that the itnerpretation of > producitve forces innovation leading to societal relatiosn innovation - > is refletion of a nodal point that is not simply related to one single > invention/productive advnace - but a cacapity within a society to > develop a range of innovations. In some instances, say the discovery of > iron and its smelting and malaeabilty etc- this may be a single > discovery that itself spawns a whole set of subsequent developments. Is > that not the overall intent of Mar & Engels in this views on what came > to be known as historical materialism? > A cell phone can come & go......... (I wish the desire to have them > would go frankly and make the world quieter) but the technology behind > it goes one....... > There are I believe, numeorus examples within the realm of biological > history that relate to the leap frog effect of a whole series of > scientific advances that in toto- represent a dialectical leap. > Hari > > I'm sure there are logical connections missing in the previous paragraph > > but > the basic idea is okay, I think. It underlines the importance that > ideology at least idea shave in determing so-called "material" > reality/facts. > > Eric > MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department KOMAKI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL JOHBUSHI,1-20 KOMAKI CITY AICHI Pre JAPAN 0568-76-4131 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In capitalist society that anyone can't argue "Productive forces must produce "what people want" Instead, capital produce in its own for profit,not in order to human needs. See huge commodities unnecessary See "Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844" "This estrangement manifests itself in part in that the sophistication of needs and of the means (of their satisfaction) on the one side produces a bestial barbarisation, a complete, crude, abstract simplicity of need, on the other; or rather in that it merely reproduces itself in its opposite. Even the need for fresh air ceases to be a need for the worker. Man returns to a cave dwelling, which is now, however, contaminated with the pestilential breath of civilisation, and which he continues to occupy only precariously, it being for him an alien habitation which can be withdrawn from him any day ― a place from which, if he does not pay, he can be thrown out any day. For this mortuary he has to pay. A dwelling in the light, which Prometheus in Aeschylus designated as one of the greatest boons, by means of which he made the savage into a human being, ceases to exist for the worker. Light, air, etc. ― the simplest animal cleanliness ― ceases to be a need for man"
