From James Heartfield to John Gulick:
><jlgulick at sfo.com> 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