>>> Max Sawicky <sawicky at epinet.org> 01/29/00 12:39PM >>>
CB: Are you really saying that there is a in U.S. economy/society a scarcity
, such that every last person could not be guaranteed food, shelter,
clothing, transportation and many more basic use-values ?
>>>>>
mbs: No, but once having obtained 'basic use-values,' everyone would want more.
&&&&&&&&&&
CB: But sometimes it seems some people are saying because people would want more if everyone had basic use-values, we shouldn't organize to provide everybody with basic needs. That's SNAFU logic.
Of course, everyone should have more than only basic use-values. But of course there is a scarcity in relation to unlimited wants.
To rearrange things so that everyone has basic use-values would require a revolution in everyone's thinking. So as a premise to solving the problem of scarcity relative to unlimited wants we already have a society of people who would all be quite rational in limiting their wants beyond basic use-values to what the resources in existence could provide. So the everyone wanting more would be an everyone with a rational limit on how much more they want.
&&&&&&&&&&
>>>>>>>>>>>
If you took three-quarters of the wealth of approximately the wealthiest
10% ( leaving them all still wealthy) and redistributed it to the poorest
10%, scarcity of all fundamental use-values would be eradicated, no ? What
you are saying seems implausible.
>>>>>>>>>>
The wealth represents the capital stock. If you redistributed ownership [emphasis added:] *for the purpose of immediate consumption*, total productive capacity would fall radically.
Wealth is not some mountain of consumables. It could be translated into same, but at the considerable cost of reduced consumption afterwards.
&&&&&&&&&
CB: Yes, most of the capitalists' wealth is in the form of means of production or ficticious capital (is it ?) , not means of consumption. So, of course there couldn't be a simple redistribution of wealth in its current form. There would have to be a radical reorganization of mode of production ( :>))
Nonetheless, on the original point, there is not scarcity in the sense that RIGHT NOW there exist sufficient use-values to meet everybody's basic needs. Contra your original statement,
" The socialization of the means of production/elimination of classes seems to connote an absence of scarcity that does not obtain in *any* real economy, where rationing of one sort or another is inescapable. Nice to imagine but hard to believe."
there IS an absence of scarcity of the actual use-values to meet everyone's basic needs and a lot more stuff than that ( though not enough to meet infinite wants obviously); A substantial menu of basic needs could be totally satisfied and not rationed. Wants beyond that would be "rationed".
Further, there is "rationing" now. Socialization of the means of production/elimination of classes would not require more rationing than now.
&&&&&&&&&&&
The capitalist consumption/conspicuous consumption component of output is trivial in comparison to unmet needs of the masses. So redistributing it doesn't get you very far.
&&&&&&&&&
CB: Yes, but isn't it true that the current technological capacity is sufficient such that if reconfigured to produce for use instead of for exchange, it could almost immediately meet all unmet needs of the masses ? I mean it might take a year or two to organize it all, but the productive capacity is in existence right now.
&&&&&&&&&&&
The real problem is under-production of 'basic use-values.' If capitalism falls, that will be the reason.
&&&&&&&&
CB: Yes, but the "scarcity" of capitalism in relation to basic use-values for all and even a hell of a lot of luxurious use-values for ALL is not because the forces of production are objectively lacking. The scarcity is caused because those who control the forces of production refuse to use them to produce enough use-values and distribute them to eradicate need entirely for all and further use them to meet quite a bit of mass wants beyond basic needs , no ? ( of course nothing could meet unlimited wants). Scarcity is not objectively , but ideologically created by the current system.
CB