The question posited by Shawn actually goes to the heart of the debate.
Technological innovation in the systems based on lesser degrees of
individuation than capitalism apparently had just two sources --
socio-technological mutations occurring during the dire periods of systemic
transition, usually caused by environmental calamities (neolithic
revolution), or enhanced warfare capability (chariot, iron, or Soviet
sputnik).
Capitalism in its pursuit of profit has been outstandingly innovative
indeed (I leave aside the question whether for better or for worse, and to
what degree markets served the warfare purposes). Incidentally, the
trajectory of arts in modern world-system is even more awe-inspiring -- or
pitiful, considering that it travelled from Renaissance standards to
mass-culture and post-modernism. Still, if measure, rather than judge, just
the pace and variety of change, in "Western" arts, there has never been a
parallel in history.
Rhetorical answers about the unbound potential of squarely rewarded workers
suggest that a more sound answer might be unavailable in principle.
We may need to reformulate the question -- will the post-capitalist
historical system be as rapidly and continuously changing over time, or,
rather, stasis will be its major value?
Why not, then capitalism (plus, maybe, European feudalism, an extremely
technologically and artistically dynamic period as well) might look in
hypothetical retrospect as geologically brief phase of mutation on the way
towards another equilibrium.
Georgi
Georgiļ M. Derluguian
Department of Sociology
Northwestern University
1812 Chicago Avenue
Evanston, Illinois 60208-1330
USA
FAX (1-847) 491-9907
tel. (1-847) 491-2741 (rabota)