Jim Devine wrote:
>
> Doug: >> I'm going to sound like I'm channeling James Heartfield here,
> but Carrol's post is an example of the exhaustion and fundamental
> conservatism that has taken over much of the left ... . I thought we
> were supposed to be about criticizing the quality of things and
> social relations under capitalism - not criticizing growth and change
> in themselves.<<
>
> Yoshie: >Isn't 99.99% of growth and change in the present stage of
> capitalism unnecessary, only selling disposable goods to disposable
> people who are compelled to work harder to buy more disposable goods,
> simply because fixing things doesn't make profits?<
>
> there's no disagreement here, since Yoshie is criticiaize the quality
> of things -- and social relations under capitalism.
I would argue for the identity of quality & quantity here. Growth (of any kind) is core to capitalism, within which one encounters an indentity of stagnation and stability. The projection of growth/progress as a good-in-itself into socialist thinking (as Doug and Marvin urge) would ensure the continuation of this identity in a socialist order. Thoreau was wrong in many ways, but he was not an idiot.
Carrol