>
>
> >Both Marx and Deleuze and Guattari, who have at least 3 brain cells
> >between them, argue that this "limited amount of material goods" is a
> >capitalist construction, not some base on which we construct our
> >economic system. "Lack" is produced.
>
> Obviously they never looked out their front doors to see the overpopulation
> and the decreasing space and food, water, etc, available.
>
> Jeff
>
> JLN
> jlnich1@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Department of Philosophy
> University of Kentucky
> Lexington, KY. 40509
>
>
>
Marx would not deny that scarcity exists in capitalism. Certainly not every
human being can have everything that they desire. Scarcity of resources puts
a limit on the fulfillment of desires (that is why capitalism is a necessary
evil for Marx, in that through its continued technological progress it will
put an end to scarcity, or at least, make it less of a problem).
Such may indeed be a Utopian element of Marx's philosophy, but the hope
exists. However, to acknowledge that scarcity exists is not also
an acknowledgment that such scarcity must be dealt with in the manner that
it is in capitalism. Marx suggests that the idea that the best way to
deal with scarcity, that is, the best way to distribute limited resources, is
through the mechanism of profit motivation, private enterprise and supply
and demand (the 'natural' laws of the market), is indeed a social construction
of capitalist society. One can deal with the fact of scarcity in many ways;
equal distribution, market forces, etc. The "lack' described by Marx is
this capitalistic notion that scarcity is inevitable, and that, given the
nature of human beings, the best way to deal with it is through market
forces, where some indidivlas will be poor, and some will be rich. This is
a lack in real terms, where some lack the basic elements of subsistence, and
some do not, where some lack the ability to live a fulfilling life, and some do not. In a situation of equal distribution, surely all would lack (the ability
to fulfill all their desires), but none would lack basic neseesities, and all
would share the same material elements needed for an equal chance at
fulfillment (although not unlimited fulfillment). This current debate about
scarcity and justice, if it is to be carried on in Marxist terms, should keep
in mind that the scarcity of resources is not a social construction, but the
solution to such an economic fact is surely a social product.
Greg Coolidge
Univ. of Calif., Riverside
>
> >Both Marx and Deleuze and Guattari, who have at least 3 brain cells
> >between them, argue that this "limited amount of material goods" is a
> >capitalist construction, not some base on which we construct our
> >economic system. "Lack" is produced.
>
> Obviously they never looked out their front doors to see the overpopulation
> and the decreasing space and food, water, etc, available.
>
> Jeff
>
> JLN
> jlnich1@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Department of Philosophy
> University of Kentucky
> Lexington, KY. 40509
>
>
>
Marx would not deny that scarcity exists in capitalism. Certainly not every
human being can have everything that they desire. Scarcity of resources puts
a limit on the fulfillment of desires (that is why capitalism is a necessary
evil for Marx, in that through its continued technological progress it will
put an end to scarcity, or at least, make it less of a problem).
Such may indeed be a Utopian element of Marx's philosophy, but the hope
exists. However, to acknowledge that scarcity exists is not also
an acknowledgment that such scarcity must be dealt with in the manner that
it is in capitalism. Marx suggests that the idea that the best way to
deal with scarcity, that is, the best way to distribute limited resources, is
through the mechanism of profit motivation, private enterprise and supply
and demand (the 'natural' laws of the market), is indeed a social construction
of capitalist society. One can deal with the fact of scarcity in many ways;
equal distribution, market forces, etc. The "lack' described by Marx is
this capitalistic notion that scarcity is inevitable, and that, given the
nature of human beings, the best way to deal with it is through market
forces, where some indidivlas will be poor, and some will be rich. This is
a lack in real terms, where some lack the basic elements of subsistence, and
some do not, where some lack the ability to live a fulfilling life, and some do not. In a situation of equal distribution, surely all would lack (the ability
to fulfill all their desires), but none would lack basic neseesities, and all
would share the same material elements needed for an equal chance at
fulfillment (although not unlimited fulfillment). This current debate about
scarcity and justice, if it is to be carried on in Marxist terms, should keep
in mind that the scarcity of resources is not a social construction, but the
solution to such an economic fact is surely a social product.
Greg Coolidge
Univ. of Calif., Riverside