nathan tankus wrote: > @Jim: that application of Marx's analysis is a little too crude for > me. his "relative surplus population" isn't simple unemployed people. > it's generally the people that capital doesn't need to employ. > however, just because capital doesn't need (nor isn't) employing you > doesn't mean your unemployed. it just means capital isn't employing > you. nothing in that analysis precludes a WPA like program that > employs people at the minimum wage level (generating a true minimum > wage by the way) and can be bid out of the program at any time by > capital. I'm not convinced the relative surplus population must be > largely unemployed.
it's true that the reserve army of the unemployed that threatens employed workers doesn't have to correspond to officially-measured unemployment. Also, Shane is right: anti-labor authoritarianism can substitute for the reserve army, so that (open) unemployment can be nil. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
