Plenty for All

Over-population, our Lords and Masters say, is another cause of our misery. They mean by this, that the resources of the country are inadequate to its population. - William Benbow, Chartist, 1832

No person can deny that the world is beset by numerous problems that are attributed to "overpopulation" - hunger, poverty, pollution, depletion of natural resources, slow economic growth, wars, etc. But is the real cause of these problems over-population. Capitalism tries to get workers to blame themselves for the problems of the world. Capitalism schemes to get people to view themselves rather than the system as the source of their problems. They wish to prove that hunger and poverty are not the fault of the rich for deciding not to produce what people need, but the fault of the poor and hungry for being too many.

The solution to the over-population problem is to overthrow capitalism for if production is geared to the needs of the people and not to filling a few greedy pockets there will be no problem of too many people. If fighting the real social problems of pollution and poverty is to be won then it is to see that the root of the problem is not over-population but capitalism itself. The problem is not one of over population. The earth could sustain a far higher population than already exists, but only if land were cultivated in order to produce food that is needed rather than what is profitable. The central point is that world hunger is not due to the impossibility of producing more food.  If people could decide what they produce, there would be more than enough food for many times the world’s population. Factor in the massive re-organisation of distribution, with the intelligent application of available farming technology, then we can feed masses more people than there currently are. Once we are living in socialism, the release of human creativity to solve the problem of a finite planet and potential ever-expanding population we are sure will provide many strategies that we can't even begin to imagine. New technologies of food production and medicine will be able to do more and more to remove the 'problem' in the first place.

The natural resources are there. The technology is there. The knowledge to produce is there.Mankind is smart enough to travel into space, tunnel into the bowels of the earth, dive deep under the oceans; but we  go hungry in the midst of food. That is capitalism! It cannot be otherwise under capitalism! Instead of plenty for all - the fat of the land for the few and the crumbs for the rest.

The Demographic Transition Model (DTM) is a model used to represent the transition from high birth and death rates to low birth and death rates as a country develops from a pre-industrial to an industrialized economic system. The theory is based on an interpretation of demographic history developed in 1929 by the American demographer Warren Thompson. Thompson observed changes, or transitions, in birth and death rates in industrialized societies over the previous 200 years.Most developed countries are in stage 3 or 4 of the model; the majority of developing countries have reached stage 2 or stage 3. The major (relative) exceptions are some poor countries, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa and some Middle Eastern countries, which are poor or affected by government policy or civil strife, notably Pakistan, Palestinian Territories, Yemen and Afghanistan. In essence, overpopulation is not a problem. Poverty is.

So far productivity through scientific and technological advance has outstripped reduced resources (albeit under capitalism at other costs) but there is no reason to think this cannot continue in a more ecologically sustainable way. he total land area of the planet is about 12 billion hectares, but only 1.3 billion hectares can currently be used as arable land. Even with a population of 10 billion, this would mean 0.13 hectares per person, or something over a third of an acre. If farmed by means of intensive horticulture a plot this size could feed dozens.The average yield in England is about eight tonnes of wheat per hectare per year, enough to feed a couple of dozen people; so the 0.13 hectare per person available once global population settles down would be plenty to feed three or four. The conclusion of such calculations is inescapable: even without genetically-modified crops, the Earth can produce more than enough to feed likely future populations.

The excessive consumption of both renewal and non-renewable resources and the release of waste that nature can’t absorb that currently go on are not just accidental but an inevitable result of capitalism’s very nature. Endless “growth” – and the growing consumption of nature- given materials this involves – is built in to capitalism. However, this is not the growth of useful things as such but rather the growth of money-values.

Socialism is about eventually creating what some call a "steady-state economy" or "zero-growth". A situation where human needs are in balance with the resources needed to satisfy them. Such a society would already have decided on the most appropriate way to allocate resources to meet the needs of its members. This having been done, it would only need to go on repeating this continuously from production period to production period. Production would not be ever-increasing but would be stabilised at the level required to satisfy needs. All that would be produced would be products for consumption and the products needed to replace and repair the raw materials and instruments of production used up in producing these consumer goods. The point about such a situation is that there will no longer be any imperative need to develop productivity. In a stable society such as socialism, needs would most likely change relatively slowly. What it means is that we should construct permanent, durable means of production which you don’t constantly innovate. We would use these to produce durable equipment and machinery and durable consumer goods designed to last for a long time, designed for minimum maintenance and made from materials which if necessary can be re-cycled. In this way we would get a minimum loss of materials; once they’ve been extracted and processed they can be used over and over again. It also means that once you’ve achieved satisfactory levels of consumer goods, you don’t insist on producing more and more. Total social production could even be reduced. This will be the opposite of to-day. Society would move into a stable mode, a rhythm of daily production in line with daily needs with no significant growth which would reconcile two great needs, the need to live in material well being whilst looking after the planet.

On scarcity, its the same. We deny there will be a problem. First we have to define what scarcity is . Orthodox economics argue it is limited supply - versus- boundless demand. Our wants are essentially “infinite” and the resources to meet them, limited, claim the economists. They claim that without the guidance of prices socialism would sink into inefficiency . According to the argument, scarcity is an unavoidable fact of life. And thats what the text-books describe economics as - the allocation of scarce resources.

However, outside the class-room and in the real world, abundance is not a situation where an infinite amount of every good could be produced. Similarly, scarcity is not the situation which exists in the absence of this impossible total or sheer abundance. Abundance is a situation where productive resources are sufficient to produce enough wealth to satisfy human needs, while scarcity is a situation where productive resources are insufficient for this purpose.Abundance is a relationship between supply and demand, where the former exceeds the latter. Achieving abundance can be understood as the maintenance of an adequate buffer of stock in the light of possible future demand. The relative abundance or scarcity of a good would be indicated by how easy or difficult it was to maintain such an adequate buffer stock in the face of a demand trend (upward, static, or downward). It will thus be possible to choose how to combine different factors for production, and whether to use one rather than another, on the basis of their relative abundance/scarcity.

How do we tell when something is becoming scarce? We use the tools and systems that capitalism bequeathes us ,which will be suitably modified and adapted and transformed for the new conditions. There is stock or inventory control systems and logistics. The key to good stock management is the stock turnover rate – how rapidly stock is removed from the shelves – and the point at which it may need to be re-ordered. So its a matter of simply monitoring the shelves.The maintenance of surplus stocks would provide a buffer against unforeseen fluctuations in demand

In a particular situation of actual physical shortage we can use substitution and by whats described as the law of the minimum - you economise most on those factors of production that are relatively scarcest.

If people over-consume then communism cannot possibly work.

Humans behave differently depending upon the conditions that they live in. Human behaviour reflects society. In capitalism, people's needs are not met and people feel insecure. People tend to acquire and hoard goods because possession provides some security. People have a tendency to distrust others because the world is such a rat-race.

Under capitalism, there is a very large industry devoted to creating needs. Capitalism requires consumption, whether it improves our lives or not, and drives us to consume up to, and past, our ability to pay for that consumption. In a system of capitalist competition, there is a built-in tendency to stimulate demand to a maximum extent. Firms, for example, need to persuade customers to buy their products or they go out of business. They would not otherwise spend the vast amounts they do spend on advertising.

There is also in capitalist society a tendency for individuals to seek to validate their sense of worth through the accumulation of possessions. When the wealth of the ruling class so preoccupies the minds of its members, such a notion of status will be deep-rooted within workers . It is this which helps to underpin the myth of infinite demand. It does not matter how modest one's real needs may be or how easily they may be met; capitalism's "consumer culture" leads one to want more than one may materially need since what the individual desires is to enhance his or her status within this hierarchal culture of consumerism and this is dependent upon acquiring more than others have got. But since others desire the same thing, the economic inequality inherent in a system of competitive capitalism must inevitably generate a pervasive sense of relative deprivation. What this amounts to is a kind of institutionalised envy and an alienated capitalism.

In socialism, status based upon the material wealth would be a meaningless concept. The notion of status based upon the conspicuous consumption of wealth would be devoid of meaning because individuals would stand in equal relation to the means of production and have free access to goods and services. Why take more than you need when you can freely take what you need? In socialism the only way in which individuals can command the esteem of others is through their contribution to society.

Work in socialist society could only be voluntary since there would be no group in a position to force people to work against their will.This will work to ensure that a socialist society is run on the basis of democratic consensus. The sense of mutual obligations and of universal interdependency would influence perceptions and affect their behaviour.