[lbo-talk] Krugman: "The question then is why."

[brad]

Joanna: "He said that what everyone is being told is that there's not
enough to go around, that we live in a world of increasing scarcity
and that the general population of the West is convinced that sharing
with the developing world is not feasable, and that if it were, it
would certainly mean less for the rest of us. So the swing to the
right is a vote for that party which looks more consistent and more
willing to fight the encroaching hoards."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The idea that there isn't enough to go around is pure ideology.  It is
used to convince people that they need to look out for number one
first.

I like to use food to describe the relations under capitalism because
there is more then enough food to feed everyone  healthy diets (UN FAO
claims about twice as much as needed is produced every year) but yet
the number of people starving continues to climb.  The same is pretty
much true across the board: rising inequality means some have none
while others have too much.  The only way to justify the situation is
to claim that the reduced ability to meet needs is due to an absolute
lack rather than by hoarding at the top.

It is also true that what we need is socially produced and under
capitalism those needs must continually grow.

Also at some point, maybe now, capitalism will cease to be a
revolutionary force and become a hindrance to production (too
orthodox?).  This is tied in with the individualization of society
because we produce and innovate best as social animals.  If we
continue to remove that social character we will remove what made
humans unique (that we are the most social of all animals due to our
complex language development which allowed us to pass on knowledge).
So it isn't just that capitalism will cease to be revolutionary in
strict production terms but it is de-socializing us and this will
hinder our capacity to develop.

Brad