Re: RE: Productive Forces

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 2/28/2002 8:56:25 AM Central Standard Time, enilsson@xxxxxxxxx writes:


> Jim wrote,
>
> > How do we measure the "productive forces," anyway? It seems that capitalism
> > would measure their development differently from other modes of production.
> > (Capitalism might measure them in terms of labor productivity, which is
> > marketable output per worker, corrected for inflation. There are all sorts
> > of index-number problems with that measure, BTW.)  
>
>  
> I would go further. It could be argued that no "objective" measure of the level of productive forces can exist. 
>  
> Presumably a productive force is considered productive because it leads to some good or service that people want and/or need. But, as Smith and Marx recognized, wants and needs are (partly) socially/historically determined. 
>  
> The ability to produce cell phones at lower cost (and the same quality) would be considered an advance in the productive forces if people wanted cheaper cell phones. But if people, for some reason, decided they no longer wanted cell phones the ability to produce cheaper cell phones would not be considered an advance in productive forces.
>  
> 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.
>  
> Eric
>  


Is not human beings the decisive element in the production forces? 

Melvin P.