[ show plain text ]
A couple of responses to Jerry on population growth and menshevism:
>You suggest that there will be a stabilization in the world's
>population at 8 billion and that there will be an "average
>zero rate of natural increase" in population.
>Also I would like to hear your argument why poulation growth will
>decline in "rich countries" and increase in "poor countries".
>btw, *even if* that were the case, it would imply that population
>would be growing overall *unless* you also see more poor countries
>becoming rich countries in this century. Do you?
The basic mechanism for stabilization is the fall in fertility with rising
income. You can see this sharply in cross section data from countries, such
as the Extended Penn World Tables data set compiled by Adalmir Marquetti
and available at http://cepa.newschool.edu. Some of the equilibration comes
from poor countries getting richer, and some from a shift downward in
fertility for any income level (for the reasons you mentioned, particularly
higher levels of women's education and economic aspirations).
>You assert a "Menshevik scenario" in which capital accumulation
>will put socialism on the agenda.
>To begin with, why is your scenario a "Menshevik scenario"?
I thought the Mensheviks argued for an interpretation of Marx which
emphasized capitalism's historical role as preparing the ground for
socialism by developing the forces of production, which was what I had in
mind on a world scale. Didn't the Mensheviks argue for critical support of
the nascent Russian bourgeoisie in the 1917 crisis?
Duncan K. Foley
Department of Economics
New School University
65 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:05 EST