^^^^^^ CB: I think you are correct, Marvin, to point to this inconsistency in the classical jargon of Marxism. Perhaps if we consider that Marx and Engels also pointed out that with capitalism a situation arises that would be an absurdity in previous eras - too much growth , too much production, overproduction - , we take a step towards explaining this. In other words, socialism would not have creative destruction in which periodically there is destruction of a mass of the means of production, i.e. irrational waste. In other words, with the powerful means of production developed under capitalism, and without the regular "over"production, socialism meet everybody's needs with , well, less actual production. The superior productive capacity of socialism over capitalism consists in the closer fit between supply and demand,not in developing more powerful technical means of production, or very importantly working workers harder. Another element is that lots of consumer goods types never would have been missed and the lack of them wouldn't have been felt as a lower standard of living and quality of life , if marketing, advertising, commodity fetishism had not pumped up people to "want" them. In other words, people _could_ have been and can be happy without a lot of capital's production. This is more significant now than it was in Marx's day because of the greater scale of capitalogenic ecological pollution.
Then capitalism requires production of ANTI-use values, because it must have war. Socialism doesn't need war. So, capitalism's greater destruction, means that net, socialism is potentially more productive. That is, with an absence of so much destruction, socialism may be thereby more productive than capitalism.
^^^^^^
That has not come to pass, more than a century after Marx.
^^^^^ CB: I'd say this is true, and it is based on one of the new conclusions that modern Marxists must draw from experience since the first efforts to build socialism; and that Marx and Engels didn't have any chance to conclude because there was no real experience with socialism. Capitalism has been able to thwart socialism from achieving greater productivity, as I define it above, by militarily bludgeoning socialism - Russian Civil War, Nazi invasion of USSR, Cold War nuclear threat on USSR, et al, genocidal wars on Viet Nam and Korea, et al. It is mildly implied by Marx and Engels position that socialism must be won in an advanced capitalist country. I'd say this is why China has had to backtrack defensively. Socialism has superior productive potential ,but it doesn't have "superior" destructive potential to capitalism. Capitalism has parlayed its superior destructive potential into extending its lifespan, to the profound detriment of humanity. At any rate, this is an almost completely new factor in the equation on the question of socialism's superior productive potential. And I don't have a good solution. It is an enormous dilemma for humanity, not just Marxists, given where capitalism is now taking us.
^^^^^
But better not share your particular understanding of socialism with your friends, neighbours and colleagues if you want to win converts. They want more growth, more jobs, more income with more time off, more change - not less - and I can't see how anyone could argue they're not justified in wanting these. Unless you accept the notion that economic growth will inevitably outstrip our capacity to cope with it, which I think has to be demonstrated. It's your perogative to do so, but you'd be wrong to identify the idea with the socialist movement.