Productive Forces Theory

[BlackCapital]

When explaining socialism to people one of what I think is the most effective methods is exposing the irrationality of capitalism in terms of it being production for profit instead of use-value and how we could easily meet the needs and wants of society with our productive and distributive abilities. I just stumbled across this articles however and I wasn't quite sure what to think about it.
http://reality.gn.apc.org/polemic/whydid.htm (PRODUCTIVE FORCES THEORY)

"Definition: productive forces theory. The idea that an increase in the level of productive forces will automatically create the conditions for a socialist society. Productive forces theory does not pay attention to the need for continuing revolution in the ideological and political arenas, which have the intention of reshaping peoples worldview. It is a passive and 'inevitablist' theory in that, if socialism is inevitable, then why bother to continue struggling for it? The potentially creative role of a mass input is excluded from productive forces theory, and there is a reliance on material incentives."

-How is this an 'inevatablist' theory, especially without struggle? To run the productive forces to their potential they would obviously need to be liberated from capitalist control, as not to be under the constraints of capitalist economics.

-How does it not pay attention to continuing revolution in ideological and political arenas, in order to reshape peoples world view? In order for the revolution to be successful in the first place, peoples worldviews would already be vastly different through class consciousness. Once there is relative abundance, then peoples worldview will presumably begin to evolve further out of greed, scarcity psychology, ect.

-Where is the reliance on material incentives? He keeps emphasizing a need for human growth outside of materialism, but fails to recognize that material abundance could most effectively facilitate this.

-He mentions in the link massive ecological damage cause by economic development and over-production in the USSR. Ive never heard of this, and can't find anything on it, anyone know anything? And isn't it more then feasible that with the profit motive removed and the degree of technological sophistication we have access to that we can effectively employ green technologies to reduce these types of threats?

In conclusion I'm not sure if I misunderstand what hes saying or disagree at this point. Anyways, I'd like to discuss/debate/whatever about the article and the productive forces theory. Its a very integral part of my understanding of socialist economics so I really appreciate any feedback!

[BlackCapital]

Perhaps I'm being unclear..or nobody cares?

[Glenn Beck]

Your critique is an apt one I think. While the theory of productive forces is as you rightly point out not necessarily reactionary, inevitablist, reductionist, etc. it most certainly can be without a properly dialectical understanding of the development of productive forces in tandem with social evolution. They truly feed into one another.

The article you linked critiques specifically the theory of productive forces as applied in the Soviet Union during a period where it truly was such a hobbled and myopic theory. The insight that the relative underdevelopment of production in the Soviet Union was latched onto opportunistically in order to de-emphasize radical social reforms and to cement political stability. This is most evident during the episode the author cites during the period of 'peaceful coexistence' where the leaders of the USSR announced that the nation had at last reached socialism and all that needed to be done was quietly develop the economy in order to reach communism within however many years. This was obviously an absurd and opportunistic assertion.

The themes treated in the article remind me somewhat of Che Guevara's ideological critiques during his tenure as minister of industry.

[AvanteRedGarde]

The Theory of Productive Forces is honestly a more convincing argument for capitalism.

It goes like this: Inequality, stratification, gradient division of labor, etc all help increase targeted productivity. Because productivity is higher the social product is higher, thus enabling everyone to have a larger share of the pie.

Actually, in reality, its a damn good argument for capitalism. While it's true to some regards, its primarily a cover up for the fact that capitalism leads to greater inequality, stratification, division of labor, etc.

On the other side, in socialism, the goal is to erase inequalities, stratification, divisions, etc. While fixed capital is important, it is the human element that is decisive. It is necessary that people understand as much as the production process as possible and are not stuck in one position. The is contradicted to the TOPF, which often leads to technology being understood and the production process being understood by state technitians, managers and future capitalists and not by workers, whom are seen more as cogs in machine.

It should also be noted that all nominally socialists revolutions (outside of National Socialist that is) have occurred in non-imperialists countries, and thus sought to 'catch up with the West.' The has always been somewhat preposterous because modern imperialism is based off of exploiting people around the world. As of yet, not a single nominally socialist country has been able to catch up with the major imperialist powers in terms of living standards of mainstream citizens, though it is a hard comparison to made given that collective nature of socialism. The Theory of Productive Forces, under nominal socialism, seems to have always been in part a genuine attempt to raise living standards under socialism, a desire to 'catch up with the west,' and lastly an 'explanation' which convientely overlapped with the interests of the given power structure.

[BlackCapital]

The Theory of Productive Forces is honestly a more convincing argument for capitalism.

It goes like this: Inequality, stratification, gradient division of labor, etc all help increase targeted productivity. Because productivity is higher the social product is higher, thus enabling everyone to have a larger share of the pie.

Actually, in reality, its a damn good argument for capitalism. While it's true to some regards, its primarily a cover up for the fact that capitalism leads to greater inequality, stratification, division of labor, etc.

On the other side, in socialism, the goal is to erase inequalities, stratification, divisions, etc. While fixed capital is important, it is the human element that is decisive. It is necessary that people understand as much as the production process as possible and are not stuck in one position. The is contradicted to the TOPF, which often leads to technology being understood and the production process being understood by state technitians, managers and future capitalists and not by workers, whom are seen more as cogs in machine.


What leads you to believe that productivity is higher under capitalism? The rate of productions is calculated and set accordingly to what is thought to be a profitable amount, not the maximum production possible, because it does not take use-value into account whatsoever. If this is over calculated and there is overproduction, this generally means a recession which no doubt negatively effects productivity.

Lets assume for a minute that for some reason a capitalist economy is theoretically more productive, that means very little for social product because theres no logical reason to think everyone has a "larger piece of the pie". It would just mean more profits and wealth for capitalists, minus whatever concessions they were forced to make.

You also say not one nominally socialist country has been able to catch up with the standard of living for most citizens in western imperial nations. The Soviet Union was constantly progressing in terms of standard of living, and when thinking about mainstream citizens, it is important to remember that that is not middle class, because middle class economically speaking is a minority. For instance health-care and other government provided services in the Soviet Union would have been a luxury for many,many working class people in the west.

Just a few arguments from my perspective.