No. Next question... On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 9:37 AM, c b <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://www.peoplesworld.org/is-full-employment-possible-under-capitalism/ > > Is full employment possible under capitalism? > > > > by: Sam Webb > February 27 2013 > > tags: Jobs, workers rights, capitalism, CPUSA, history, economics > Unemployment2 > > Editor's note: The following are remarks given by Communist Party USA > chair Sam Webb at a Feb. 25 University of Georgia debate sponsored by > Phi Kappa Literary Society. The debate topic was "Is full employment > possible under capitalism?" Webb debated Greg Morin from the > Libertarian Party of Georgia. > > Billed as "The Debate That Never Happened," UGA's Phi Kappa Literary > Society decided to recreate an attempted 1963 debate between CPUSA's > Arnold Johnson and UGA economist David Wright. That attempt had been > squelched by a unanimous vote of the Faculty Committee on Student > Affairs. The society was accused of attempting to "incite riot." In > the spirit of free speech, the society hosted this debate during its > 50th anniversary. > > Thank you, and thanks to Phi Kappa Literary Society for the invitation > to participate in this debate on this beautiful campus and in this > historic chapel. Thanks also to Speak Progress. > > The debate question - "Is full employment possible under capitalism" - > is by no means an academic one. > > By last count, approximately 12 million Americans were officially > unemployed. Of those, 4.7 million have been jobless for 27 weeks or > longer. > > If we include in our calculations discouraged workers who have stopped > looking, and part-time workers who would prefer full-time work, the > number is much higher - roughly 20 million people. > > If you are African American, Latino, Native American Indian, and/or > young, you are going to be overrepresented in those figures. > > Here in Georgia the unemployment rate stands at 8.6 per cent. Without > fundamental changes in public policies, it is hard to see how this > awful situation will change. > > Which prompts the question: Is persistent and high joblessness - not > to mention stagnant and falling living standards - U.S. capitalism's > "new normal?" > > If it were, it would contrast with the world that I grew up in. That > era, stretching from the end of World War II to the early 1970s, is > sometimes referred to as the "Golden Age" of capitalism. > > This phrase doesn't capture the full complexities of that period, but > it does capture some of its most salient features, namely, that it was > an era of sustained growth, diminishing inequality, and low > unemployment - the likes of which we hadn't seen before or since. > > My father, for example, who was a lineman in the backwoods of Maine, > never experienced a layoff, even a short one, in a work life that > began during the Depression and ended in the late 1960s. > > At the time, economists thought that the cyclical ups and downs of the > economy had been tamed and that full or near-full employment was the > normal condition of capitalism, not only here but also in Western > Europe and Japan. > > But looking back a half-century later, one has to think that this > period might well be the exception rather than the rule of capitalist > development. > > Now it's true that during the Clinton and Bush years rates of > unemployment were relatively low and the recessions were relatively > mild, but I would add four caveats. > > First of all, the expansion of employment during this period took > place mainly in low-wage, non-union and service sector jobs. The > growth of Walmart into the nation's largest employer is emblematic of > this phenomenon. > > The second caveat is that under the weight of chronic overproduction > in global commodity markets, a new phase of the technological > revolution, and the relocation of production to low wage economies, > tens of millions of jobs, especially in manufacturing, were > permanently lost. Many of these jobs provided livable wages and modest > health and retirement benefits to "middle class families." > > Another caveat is the Clinton-Bush years were marked by growing income > inequality and downward social mobility. The gap between the top > income layers of our society - the one per cent - and the vast > majority of wage and salary workers grew enormously to an historic > high. > > A final, and especially damning, caveat is economic growth and > employment levels rested on enormous stock, housing, and financial > bubbles, massive deregulation of markets, and the production of > unending amounts of business and consumer debt. > > While providing a lift to an otherwise sluggish economy, this > financial frenzy engineered on Wall Street and in Washington and > driven by corporate capital's drive for maximum profits wasn't > sustainable, and eventually came to an end in an economic crisis, the > likes of which we haven't seen since the Great Depression. > > To sum up, the Clinton-Bush years are not cracked up to what > conventional wisdom would like us to believe. > > Since 2008, some pickup in economic activity has occurred, but overall > employment gains and economic growth have been fitful and meager. > > Moreover, it's hard to see where the economic dynamism and jobs are > going to come from without action by the federal government, and the > restructuring of the economy on a scale that only a few in Washington > are ready to embrace. > > After all, debt and bubble-driven growth that greased the wheels of > the economy during the Clinton and Bush years is not an option. > > Nor should any help be expected from our global partners. Europe is > stuck in an economic quagmire and its austerity policies are only > making it worse. China isn't positioned to carry the rest of the world > on its shoulders. In fact, the Chinese economy's growth has also > slowed, and it is feeling the contradictions that come from its deep > integration into the capitalist global economy. > > Furthermore, the longer-term processes that I mentioned earlier - > overproduction in global commodity markets, job-displacing > technologies, and global supply lines that fan out to distant lands - > will only become more pronounced in the years ahead. > > Economic crises are supposed to be how capitalism clears away the > debris that impedes a revival of production, profits, employment and > growth, but that scenario doesn't appear to be the case today. > > So I'm guessing you know how I'm going to answer the question of this > debate: is full employment possible under capitalism in today's > conditions? > > My answer, in case there is any doubt, is NO! > > Transnational corporate capitalism, in its endless quest to accumulate > capital and wealth, has morphed from a generator of jobs and rising > income to a generator of unemployment, inequality, and insecurity. > > I would quickly add that there are ways to ameliorate the jobs crisis. > But only if the American people bring the power of their numbers and > unity to bear on government at all levels, much like Americans did in > the 1930s. > > In his first four years, President Obama enacted policies that > prevented the floor from falling out of the economy - an economy, by > the way, that was stalled primarily due to insufficient demand for > goods and services. > > In his recent State of the Union address, President Obama proposed a > higher minimum wage, stronger educational opportunities, rebuilding > the deteriorating infrastructure, immigration reform, and investment > in green technologies and jobs. > > He also resisted calls for sweeping austerity measures from his > Republican counterparts, since if enacted, they would reduce aggregate > demand and in turn exacerbate the economic and jobs crises. > > All of which are welcome. > > Nevertheless, the president's package of proposals addresses only the > edges of the deep and long-term jobs crisis that faces our country. > > Indeed, he missed an opportunity to project a bold, transformative > "new jobs" agenda. For the sake of our fragile planet and ourselves, > such an agenda would transform our economy from one dominated by Wall > Street, Lockheed Martin, Peabody Coal, Exxon and Walmart to a Main > Street economy rooted in a green, demilitarized production, clean and > renewable energy, livable wages and union protections, publicly-owned > banks, public controls over the investment policies of the Fortune > 500, affirmative action and equality, the modernization of mass > transit, aid for small and medium-sized businesses, renewal of both > urban and rural communities, democratic forms of worker ownership, and > a progressive tax structure. > > This reorientation of our economy would create millions of jobs, raise > living standards, promote fairness and equality, and give us a > fighting chance of mitigating the worst effects of climate change. > > Of course, if I had my druthers, I would prefer socialism - > democratic, working people driven, and people not profit centered. > > But that debate is for another time. > > Photo: Hundreds of job seekers gather at the Los Angeles Mission for > the ninth annual Skid Row Career Fair last month. (AP/Adam Lau) > > > - See more at: > http://www.peoplesworld.org/is-full-employment-possible-under-capitalism/#sthash.BBDJB1Mt.dpuf > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
