Re: RE: Productive Forces

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

Eric Nilsson wrote:

<<The level, and rate of growth, of the productive forces is
subjectively determined. Further, if people can be convinced that they
no longer want what the machines and tools and technology of their
society produces they might come to see the productive forces within
their society as regressing.

The implication of the above for a theory that sees the development of
the productive forces as the motor of historical development is not
good.>>

I would like to add an anecdotal exemplification of the complexity Eric
points out.

Presumably, most would (usually, under most conditions) consider it an
"advance in productive forces" if technology were developed that moved
people more rapidly from place to place. The automobile, for example.
And most (with the previous qualifications) would consider it an
additional advance if those automobiles were produced cheaply enough for
everyone (or almost everyone) to own one.

So lets look at just one isolated result of this "advance of the
productive forces" that took place between 1939 and 1970.

In 1939 it took my mother about 15 minutes to get from our home to the
school six miles away in which she taught.

In 1970 it took me two hours to get from my home to my campus office two
miles away for my 11:00 class. That is, it was very difficult to find a
parking place after 9:00 a.m., and even then one might have to drive
around for 10 minutes or so.

Now in 1985 or so productive forces did, I guess, catch up again. They
built a 4-story parking structure next to the building in which I
taught, and for $300 a year one could get a reserved spot -- though this
didn't particularly help the civil service staff, their pay being so
fucking low.

Actually, I believe prior to the development of motorized (private or
public) transportation, a huge proportion of the work force lived within
short walking distance of their work place. Now people travel as much as
two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening to get to work and
back. (I wonder how much traffic jams add social force to the chemically
addictive force of nicotine.)

And recently someone was bellyaching over the supposed antipathy of
leftists (unnamed) to make-up. Whether a person uses make-up or not is
his/her business, but one could note that that two-hour commute is
easier in the morning if one does not have to spend x additional minutes
in making oneself presentable. One could also wonder whether the use of
make-up was an individual preference or part of the fundamental social
relations of technologically advanced capitalism. I gained an hour a day
of freedom when beards became socially acceptable. My face hurts like
hell when I shave. To tolerte shaving I had to get up around two hours
before I shaved to let overnight swelling subside. Then I would have to
spend 20 minutes or so softening the beard and contracting my skin. It
still hurt like hell, but less so. Growing a beard was a real
liberation.

How many apparent preferences in technologically advanced capitalism are
not instances of individual freedom but rather destruction of leisure
time?

And how do you measure the worth (not value) of leisure time. I take it
for granted its value can't be measured.

Carrol