|
|
|
|
|
|
by cherryteastain
1 hour ago
|
|
|
> Early capitalism didn’t have steady growth because of technical advances. It had steady growth because it was early capitalism. The same technical advances created rapid growth in non industrialized non capitalist societies once they were introduced like the USSR or China. It's silly to say that orders of magnitude reductions in human labour needed to produce food, provide clean water, build sanitation and sewer systems do not result in steady growth regardless of economic system. Producing the food easily is more fundamental than deciding who gets what amount of easily produced food allocated to them. |
|
|
What created rapid growth in both the USSR and China is precisely their respective transitions from non capitalist societies to capitalist societies. Regardless of the technical advances of the (very different) times.
> It's silly to say that orders of magnitude reductions in human labour needed to produce food, provide clean water, build sanitation and sewer systems do not result in steady growth regardless of economic system.
No, what’s silly is to talk about "economic growth" regardless of the economic system. The growth in "economic growth" is a growth of exchange value produced in a given year. It makes sense only where production is meant for exchange, i.e. in capitalism.
And no, it is not silly to say that orders of magnitude reductions in human labour needed to produce food, provide clean water, build sanitation and sewer systems do not result in steady growth in capitalism. It is silly that orders of magnitude reductions in human labour needed to produce food, provide clean water, build sanitation and sewer systems do not result in steady growth in capitalism. Capitalism is silly.
> Producing the food easily is more fundamental than deciding who gets what amount of easily produced food allocated to them.
Now that’s a silly thing to say. Producing food easily is useless if the producers themselves can’t access it.