[lbo-talk] Gordon on growth: a bunch of I hope not too naive questions

[Carrol Cox]

Some of these questions are or raise theoretical issues Some are empirical.
Some analytic. (Incidedntally, FHP's was wrong from the start because they
failed to notice that analysis and theory are quite different.) Capitalism &
Growth cannot be separated, and for that reason there is no possibility
within capitalism of controlling global warming. That raises problems of
practice (i.e. of recruiting to mass movements and 'carving' out reform
goals that do not confuse the theoretical question of capitalism & growth.)

When a social order is disintegrating, some ruling class individuals join
the revolutionary movement; we are a long way from that now so we can forget
about ruling-class radical reformers. A few but insignificant.

Now you seem to think that the earth is a "trust" fund for the present
generation and the next one or two generations. Why? Ordered society (a
world with a friendly climate for business) will last at least 60 years or
so. Why should the present capitalists not simply take the position of After
us the deluge? Why should they care about a century from now? Especially
since capitalists do not rule capitalist society: capitalists relations of
production control the way in which society must be controlled. Read
Postone.

Carrol


> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Arthur Maisel
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:03 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: [lbo-talk] Gordon on growth: a bunch of I hope not too naive
> questions
> 
> First, a question I know is naive, about the CFR: If it is correct to
> assume that most senior members of the ruling class would have scorn for
> someone with a trust fund who spent it down to nothing, how can they be so
> cavalier with what could be described as the biggest trust fund they have
> control over, i.e., the earth and its resources?
> 
> Is it just the inexhaustible font of human hypocrisy? Or a substantial
lack
> of imagination?
> 
> More to the point of Gordon: Wouldn't it be a good idea to do a detailed
> analysis---based on the state of knowledge in the physical sciences---of
> which areas of the economy have potential for development through
> innovation? For example, communication may be near its physical limits, so
> any improvements can have only slight impact on the economy. The
> production
> of energy is clearly an area, by contrast, with the potential for much
> development.
> 
> And is technological innovation the only road to growth? How well does a
> market economy do with matching up problems with already existing
> technology? Are other there other modalities available/possible that are
> not informal or random? (Someone happens to read an article and has an
> aha!
> moment.) Is hyperspecialization of knowledge an impediment that can be
> overcome?
> 
> In sum, can we get experts in many  "unrelated" fields talking to each
> other about these issues? The CFR may not be interested, but is there some
> other segment of the establishment that might be?
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk