On 3/27/08, Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Could you explain why you think this all matters?
This matters in regard to an assertion -- sometimes explicitly made but almost always implied by apologists for capitalism -- that "the law of growth" of capital corresponds to the formula for compound interest. What Marx attempted to show was that there are inherent limits to the expansion of capital, whether they be physical, social or historical. That is not to say that any particular constraint is "once-and-for-all." There may be indeed be some ultimate limit somewhere but that doesn't really matter. What does matter is that each time capital runs up against a provisional limit, that limit can only be overcome by substantive, systemic changes often involving the relative or absolute "immiseration" of the other term in the capital/labor equation: labor. In the early sixties, Walt Rostow confidently proclaimed that the US, Europe and even the USSR had entered into the era of compound interest where the biggest problem would be simply how to dispose of the continually-expanding surplus -- more leisure or more goods? Guns or butter? Rostow's big mistake is that he articulated what most economists only assumed, that is to say that the formula for compound interest expresses the law of capitalist economic growth. Surely, you don't subscribe to Rostow's theory, Doug? In which case "this all" matters to you, too although you may understanably find the discussion of it superfluous. -- Sandwichman _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
