On Feb 28, 2013, at 1:37 PM, nathan tankus wrote:
why not?
This question is purely terminological. In any minimally free
economic system a certain level of unemployment--called "frictional"--
is inevitable simply because people are always changing jobs and
because some jobs are necessarily seasonal. Then there's the matter
of the "employable" population base--does that count only people who
would like to work at the prevailing wage for their trade or those who
would work only at a much higher wage? And then there's the question
of what counts as "employment." Students are (or should be) occupied
full time at the task of learning--are they "employed?" And what if a
society (capitalist or not) is civilized enough to provide a decent
basic income for everyone--is someone fully occupied in artistic
creation, or domestic activity like child raising, "employed?"
But disregarding all these--which apply every bit as much to a non-
capitalist as to a capitalist society--the answer absolutely must be
positive simply because capitalist societies in the past have
functioned at a full-employment level: for instance in 1944, during
World War II, there was "full employment" in capitalist societies as
diverse as the USA, the Third Reich, and the USSR. The only formal
condition for "full employment" under capitalism is a sufficient
repressive apparatus to prevent workers from striking or bargaining to
increase wages. When Mr. Webb of the CPUSA, which played a major role
in US capitalism's repressive apparatus during the second imperialist
world war, says that full employment is impossible under capitalism he
is also saying (under his breath) "unless the bosses once again
commission us to prevent strikes."
Shane Mage
"L'après-vie, c'est une auberge espagnole. L'on n'y trouve que ce
qu'on a apporté."
Bardo Thodol
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
