>Strachey's explanation is a bit mechanical. Rising wages can put >pressure on capitalists to renew their capital.
Strachey has an implicit response, though I think there are many questionable assumptions embedded in it. Say rising wages leads to adoption of new and improved capital goods which will yield a satisfactory rate of profit by means of dispensing with labour. Then still fewer workers will now be needed to produce the amount of consumers' goods which can be purchased. The amount of consumers' goods which can be purchased will no doubt rise to some extent, if the entire number of displaced workers can be reemployed. But they will only be reemployed if a gerater rate in the production of new capital goods is achieved. Therefore this still greater rate of accumulation becomes a condition for avoiding mass unemployment. But the second set of new capial goods in turn must be of improved, kabour saving kind, or their production will not seem profitable. But is their appearnace will necessitate a still larger creation of capital goods, at the third remove, in order to absorb the labour displaced from the production of consumers' goods. And so on and so on. rb
