I'll take the "mistake" then, Jim, because it accords with the historical evidence.
It is precisely because it looms as a "possible source of a squeeze on profits" that capital must take precautions to make sure that such a potential does not materialize. Hence, the Masters and Servants Act in the 19th century, suppression of trade unions, otherwise nearly unintelligible or incoherent bourgeois economic pseudo-theories -- wages-fund doctrine, lump-of-labor fallacy, canonical labor/leisure choice model, NAIRU -- and a structure of perverse incentives imposing quasi-fixed costs, tying social benefits to employment, etc. But, again, I'm not interested in a pissing match about whether Marx did or did not say something or whether what I'm saying does or does not accord with or contradict Marx. Let the dead bury the dead. By the way, Paul Dirac has it ass-backwards. On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > Sandwichman wrote: > > What I am suggesting is an analysis that takes issue with the > > intuitive/Marxist notion that it is the "reserve army of labor" that > > disciplines labor, if only because the crucial moment when such > discipline > > is needed is when the threat of unemployment is least credible. > > IMHO, it's a mistake to treat this as somehow a contradiction in Marx. > The situation "when the threat of unemployment is least credible" is > that where unemployment is low. Marx didn't see that as impossible; he > clearly saw the situation as a possible source of a squeeze on > profits, though his emphasis is on the role of wages as a cost instead > of on the motivation of workers (in CAPITAL, vol. I, chapter 25). But > if capital is left to its own devices, this situation leads to a > cut-back in the rate of accumulation and a re-creation of a reserve > army of labor. > > When capitalism is not left to its own devices, as when war spending > prevents this mechanism from operating (cf. the late 1960s), then the > problem of disciplining labor can persist. > -- > Jim Devine / "In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to > be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But > in poetry, it's the exact opposite." -- Paul Dirac > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Sandwichman
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
