High productivity at all costs?

But if we have no such competition,
if only one system exists in the world
(like now, where we have the global
dominance of the single system),
how bad would it be if we had reduced

Do we necessarily need
high productivity?

       Why not. It is after all a good thing, right?
The higher our productivity is, the faster we
can meet our needs.


Only, perhaps once more we haven't posed
the question properly.

A better formulation would be:

Must we strive for high
productivity at any cost?

Is high productivity a value in itself,
over human existence, over the
happiness of man?

A kind of deity (like money) at whose
altar any sacrifice is worth it?

Now, we probably need to think
about it a bit before answering.

We should measure the cost of high
productivity against the benefit we gain
from the rapid meeting of our needs.

If we destroy the environment to such a degree
that our own existence is threatened,
and we make people miserable by forcing them to work
12 hours a day under stress and anxiety,
requiring medication and psychiatrists,
then we should think about whether it is correct to make
high productivity the target with the utmost priority.

In the case, of course, where we are facing an extraordinary
emergency situation, say a natural disaster, and we have the
people homeless, injured and hungry, then yes, of course,
we all must work incessantly.

But, you know, this happens anyway.

Even under the inhuman regime in which we live.

People rush to help and stay
sleepless and hungry for days.

And we need neither carrots nor whips to
make them work until they are exhausted.

So great is the power of
humanity, whose existence
the capitalist system denies.

Under normal conditions, however, where we already have
all the basic things we actually need, and we have been
working only for extras, why should we let the people knock
themselves out with work?

What are the exceptional needs
which must be covered
as soon as possible?

If the "need" I want to meet is
to buy the new stereoscopic TV
with the ultra-high Resolution
(and usually these sorts of things
are what is presented as a need)
then I must seriously think
whether it is worth knocking myself out,
so I get it in one year instead of four.

Because I will get the Super TV anyway,
since the technical development incessantly
moves forward.

The question is whether it's worth killing
myself, so I get it an hour sooner.

Back                                        Contents                                        Continue