Political Econ of Growth. Paul A. Baran

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ the relativistic cynicism of pragmatism or with the opportunistic indeterminateness of the sundry philosophies of the élan vital; it is firmly anchored in man’s expanding and deepening scientific understanding of both nature and society, in the concrete exploration and practical exploitation of the natural and social conditions of progress.

      The historically shifting and ambivalent attitude toward progress and objective reason that has been characteristic of bourgeois thought ever since the bourgeoisie began to be continuously torn between opposition to feudalism and fear of nascent socialism accounts for the fact that the socialist critique of prevailing social and economic institutions used occasionally to find a relatively sympathetic reception on the part of bourgeois economics as long as it was directed at the residues of the feudal order. The squandering of wealth by the landlords in backward countries was no less an admissible target of attack than their prodigality under the ancien régime in the more advanced countries. There has always been much less tolerance when it came to the critique of capitalist institutions sensu stricto. And at the present imperialist stage of capitalist development, to emphasize for instance the sociopolitical structure of backward countries as the main obstacle to their progress is considered almost as suspect as to insist on the role of imperialism in the advanced capitalist countries in retarding development at home and in perpetuating stagnation in underdeveloped areas.

      Similarly economists socially and mentally anchored in the competitive, petty-bourgeois phase (and stratum) of capitalist society have developed a certain degree of clairvoyance with respect to the irrationality, wastefulness, and cultural consequences of monopoly capitalism. Oblivious of the fact that it is liberal, competitive capitalism that inescapably breeds monopoly, they recognize some of the economic, social, and human costs of capitalism’s monopolistic phase, discern some of the most obvious manifestations of excess consumption, unproductive activities, the irrationality and brutality of “economic royalism.” At the same time the writers who have either liberated themselves from the shackles of an earlier age, or who have grown directly into the “new era,” are at times impressively perspicacious when debunking the competitive order of the past—the sacrosanct virtues of capitalism’s competitive adolescence.

      While this tension within bourgeois thought accords a certain amount of insight (and information) that permits at least a proximate assessment of the nature (and magnitude) of potential economic surplus, the always latent and sporadically erupting conflict between the interests of the capitalist class as a whole and those of its individual members offers another opportunity for the comprehension of the issues involved. Thus in times of war, when victory becomes the dominant interest of the dominant class, what under the circumstances constitutes objective reason is permitted to ride roughshod over particular interests and subjective utilities. Whether it is compulsory service in the armed forces, war economic controls, or requisition and confiscation of necessary supplies, objective needs become recognized as fully ascertainable and are assigned a significance vastly superior to that of individual preferences revealed by market behavior. Yet as soon as the emergency passes, and further admission of the existence and identifiability of objective reason threatens to become a source of dangerous social criticism, bourgeois thought hastily retreats from whatever advanced positions it may have temporarily reached and lapses once more into its customary state of agnosticism and “practical intelligence.”

      What constitutes “excess consumption” in a society could be readily established if this question received but a fraction of the attention that is accorded to problems as urgent and as important as for instance the measurability of marginal utility. With regard not only to underdeveloped countries but to advanced ones as well, what represents “essential consumption” is far from being a mystery. Where living standards are in general low, and the basket of goods available to people little variegated, essential consumption can be circumscribed in terms of calories, other nutrients, quantities of clothing, fuel, dwelling space, and the like. Even where the level of consumption is relatively high, and involves a large variety of consumer goods and services, a judgment on the amount and composition of real income necessary for what is socially considered to be “decent livelihood” can be made.¹⁰

      As mentioned before, this is precisely what has been done in all countries in emergency situations such as war, postwar distress, and the like. What an agnostic apologist of the status quo and the worshipper of “consumers’ sovereignty” treat as an unsurmountable obstacle, or as a manifestation of reprehensible arbitrariness, is wholly accessible to scientific inquiry and to rational judgment.

      III

      More complicated and quantitatively less easily encompassed is the identification of unproductive workers. As pointed out earlier, the mere distinction between productive and unproductive labor encounters a determined opposition on the part of bourgeois economics. From the experience of its own youth it knows this distinction to be a powerful tool of social critique, easily turned against the capitalist order itself. Attempting to do away with it altogether, it seeks to quench the entire issue by judging the productivity, essentiality, usefulness of any performance in terms of its ability to fetch a price in the market. In this way, indeed, all differences between various types of labor disappear—all except one: the magnitude of the remuneration that any given activity commands. As long as a performance rates any monetary reward, it is treated as useful and productive by definition.¹¹

      From the preceding discussion it should be clear, however, that market valuation cannot be considered a rational test for the appraisal of the “adequacy” or “efficiency” of a socioeconomic organization. Indeed, as stressed above, the acceptance of this test would involve circular reasoning: judging a given socioeconomic structure by a yardstick that itself represents an important aspect of that very socioeconomic structure. Thus what is productive and what is unproductive labor in a capitalist society cannot be decided by reference to the daily practice of capitalism. Here again, the decision has to be made concretely, from the standpoint of the requirements and potentialities of the historical process, in the light of objective reason.

      Considered in this way a not insignificant part of the output of goods and services marketed and therefore accounted for in the national income statistics of capitalist countries represents unproductive labor. To be clear about it: all of it is altogether productive or useful within the framework of the capitalist order, indeed may be indispensable for its existence. And needless to say, the individuals engaged in this type of labor may be, and in most cases are, “upstanding citizens,” hardworking, conscientious men doing a day’s work for a day’s wage. Therefore their classification as “unproductive laborers” involves neither moral opprobrium nor any other stigmatization. As very frequently, men of good will may not only not achieve what they strive to achieve but may accomplish its very opposite if constrained to live and to work within a system the direction of movement of which is beyond their control.

      As can be easily seen, the isolation and measurement of this unproductive share of a nation’s total economic effort cannot be undertaken by the application of a simple formula. Most generally speaking, it consists of all labor resulting in the output of goods and services the demand for which is attributable to the specific conditions and relationships of the capitalist system, and which would be absent in a rationally ordered society. Thus a good many of these unproductive workers are engaged in manufacturing armaments, luxury articles of all kinds, objects of conspicuous display and marks of social distinction. Others are government officials, members of the military establishment, clergymen, lawyers, tax evasion specialists, public relations experts, and so forth. Still further groups of unproductive workers are advertising agents, brokers, merchants, speculators, and the like. A particularly good example is given by Schumpeter—one of the very few contemporary economists who was not content to dwell on the level of “practical intelligence” but attempted to rise to some understanding of the historical process:

      A considerable part of the total work done by lawyers goes into the struggle of business with the state and its organs … in socialist society there would be neither need nor room for this part of legal activity. The СКАЧАТЬ