Mark,
YOur response on this thread is really elucidating. Your principle articulated in the
paragraph below is, to my thinking, unarguably correct:
"The *real problem* for capitalism is precisely *LACK* of population, and
always has been. Capitalist growth absolutely does depend on a growing
"reserve army of labour". If you look at the figures for immigration into
the US/Canada, and compare them to growth figures, you see they are in
lockstep, and a lot of research has been done on this. The great pulses of
mainly east European immigration into N America at the turn of the 19th/20th
centuries stimulated a huge growth wave in the N American economies.
Shrinking populations have the reverse effect. It is a primary reason for
Japan's problems, and is a growing problem in Italy and elsewhere, today:
i.e. the problem of falling populations. Capitalism's own dynamics of growth
and change automatically summon whole new populations into existence, and it
feeds off them. Most of the post-war growth wave was fuelled by the
recruitment of peasants and agricultural workers into the cities of Europe
and N America. This did not happen in Britain only because it had already
happened 100 years before, and this is one of the main reasons for the
post-war British record of slow growth, structural rigidities etc."
The process of accumulation and population growth have always occured in tandem, war
being the notable exception to this which nevertheless soon makes up for itself after
the fact, as we baby-boomers are proof enough.
This next paragraph is likewise revealing:
"Sure,
there are longstanding social and historical reasons to explain why people
choose smaller or no families now, but there is also an underlying but real
problem about declining fertility (falling sperm counts, declining ovarian
fertility etc). But population is not declining, even in Italy. It's
growing, fuelled by immigration, which can surely only increase. Workers are
entering Europe from the Horn of Africa, the Balkans, and much further
afield, even China. There is a tide of illegal immigration, same as in the
USA. Workers who one week are rural uneremployed poor in Central China, a
week later are working in London sweatshops and catering."
You ask elsewhere for the reader to imagine a (successful) capitalism with an
absolutely declining population level. Indeed, unthinkable! And yet, there have been
one or two people on this list who boldly and brashly advocate massive, unrestricted
immigration as a "socialist" measure. I would ask all who take this question
seriously (which presumably includes the bulk of this list) to comment on immigration
policies in light of this understanding of the relationship between the size of the
"surplus" popu;lation, the downward pressure on wages, and the increase in the
accumulation of capital. It seems to me to follow from Mark's cogent conclusions that
seeking an absolute reduction in population would be the most effective
anti-capitalist demographic measure imaginable, yet these few others have advocated
for an absolute increase in population here. Both cannot be correct. I believe that
we have here the essence of the problem involved. Let us proceed to discuss it unti!
l it is fully understood.
Peace,
Ken
------------------------------------------------------------
((( GREAT DEAL: Home Depot: Home Improvement 1-2-3 on CD-ROM )))
Get it FREE! at: http://nettaxi.free-irewards.com ( plus S&H )
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
