--- James Heartfield <Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Indeed, capitalist levels of productivity are way
> too low to meet the needs
> of the majority, they will have to be increased -
> and happily that should
> imply the natural corollary, resource efficiency,
> too.
[WS:] It depends how ye define "needs." I recall from our previous discussion that for you it means something to akin to the American suburban dream,which in my book is a want, not a need. There is a lot of wast epurposely designed to absorb waht industry has to offer embedded in it.
A "need" in my book is defined by an intersection of the highest possible (given historical level of technology) standard of living and the lowest possible cost and wastefulness. For example, if it is technologically possible to move, say, 1 million people by transit at the cost of X dollars per person and emissions at Y level per person, the moving that 1 million by car at the cost X+n and emission Y+m is a want, becaouse it accomplishes the same goal at a higher cost, both financial and environmental.
Capitalism is good at fulfilling and generating new wants to absorb its excess capacity. By implication that capacity is more than sufficient to satisfy needs.
> On Zizek's point, yes, discipline as in alienated
> discipline over a
> workforce whose contribution is brute strength will
[WS:] What discipline are you talking about? From all the places that I know, workplace discipline is probably the most relaxed in Western capitalist countries. Elsewhere, including x-socialist countries, it tends to be much more strict and authoritarian.
Wojtek
____________________________________________________________________________________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265