I wrote:
> > Also, can't it be said that within the context of
> > capitalism, any emancipation won due to fast growth and low unemployment is
> > at best transitory, since eventually the reserve army will be restored, if
> > not by Greenspan by the slow-down in accumulation that results from
> > squeezed profits?
writes Carrol:
>Two points.
it's three, but who's counting?
>1. Marx's *Wages, Price and Profit*: If workers don't take advantage of
>every opportunity to raise their standard, they will be pressed ever
>further down. So they have to struggle to get ahead even to stay even. And
>capitalists can't necessarily raise prices (at least right away) to
>compensate for increased wages.
I agree totally: workers must take advantage of all opportunities. In fact,
I made the point that capitalists can't always raise prices to compensate
for the rise of unit labor costs (at least not right away). If this period
when capitalists can't raise prices persists, this implies a fall in the
profit rate (unless the "organic composition of capital" also falls), which
causes accumulation to slow or fall, which raises unemployment. (If
monetary policy prevents this slowing of the economy, that leads to
inflationary acceleration, as in the late 1960s/early 1970s.)
>2. And *social* gains won in the struggle are potentially permanent, or at
>least harder for the capitalists to steal back. Consider social security,
>or the real (though slipping) gains made by blacks and women (which are
>working class gains).
I wasn't arguing against struggling. Instead, I was pointing out that the
vast majority of successful struggles leave the structure of capitalism --
precisely, the capitalist control over production, pricing, and
accumulation -- untouched. We have to be conscious of this limitation. I
think most working people "on the ground" are conscious of it. We have to
understand that most people sense the degree of permanence of capitalism at
this point in history (they're not stupid) and that this is an important
basis for their reformism and/or despair. Most people have had Maggie T's
"There Is No Alternative" stuffed into their minds not only by the Powers
That Be but also by everyday experience. We have to be conscious of this
basis if we want to fight it. One thing is to get away from a sole focus on
macroeconomics to look at the potential non-reformist reforms on the
micro-level in everyday life (of course, these have to be linked with each
other). How can people run their lives better than the capitalists and
their minions do?
>3. Though (as we know even empirically from history) it does not often or
>usually happen, there is always the potential for struggles for better
>conditions to grow into something larger.
Absolutely. In addition, workers and other dominated groups must defend
themselves against constant attacks by capital.
I wrote:
> > I'd say that most workers would also like the idea of "non-inflationary
> > growth," given the fact that capitalism isn't about to crumble and die. Low
> > unemployment is great for the working class (after all, a lot of worker who
> > normally can't get jobs are getting them these days, at least in the US)
Tom Walker writes:
>Given the fact that capitalism isn't about to crumble and die . . .
>perhaps. But more importantly: given the absence of strategic
>alternatives. "Low" unemployment may indeed be great. Sustained low
>unemployment would be even better. Full employment would be ecstasy.
right. I didn't say otherwise.
>Part of the Greenspanish dynamic is that the "great" low unemployment
>can't be sustained without threatening accelerating inflation. Buy that
>argument and you've pretty much conceded not only the indefinite
>continuation of capitalism, but the specific lack of strategic
>alternatives that has characterized the past few decades.
No, I'm arguing that we need to go beyond simply being in favor of full
employment. (Bumper sticker summary: "Full Employment is Not Enough!" or
"We Don't Just Want Bread, We Want Roses, Too!") This is especially true
since there are other problems with capitalism on top of unemployment that
need to fight.
Greenspan is not simply an evil man. He's also a politicized version of the
dynamic that Marx pointed to in ch. 25 of volume I of CAPITAL. When Marx
wrote, high employment automatically led to profit squeezes which led to a
slow-down in accumulation. But that assumes the gold standard prevails.
(The gold standard sets a ceiling on prices.) With fiat money (as now
prevails), we might see worsening inflation instead. So if Greenspan didn't
exist, he'd have to be invented (by the capitalists). In fact, the
neoliberal upsurge involves the creation of Greenspans all around the
world. For example, in England, "Labor" Party prime minister Tony Blair
made the Bank of England independent of democratic control and thus
subservient to the short-term special interests of the bond market, the
bankers, and the rentiers -- and thus against inflation at all costs.
>You want to know how to sustain low rates of unemployment without kindling
>inflation? Reduce working hours.
How does this work? I haven't studied this as much as you have, Tom, but
wouldn't reducing working hours per worker increase the demand for
individual employees, which would lower the unemployment rate further into
the capitalists' perceived danger zone? Alternatively, wouldn't the
capitalists see falling working hours per worker.as just a different form
of higher labor costs? How do these avoid kindling inflation?
>I know. I know. The working class has had it so bad for so long they
>should be grateful for crumbs. Bull.
Who was it that said that workers should "be grateful for crumbs"? Not I.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
