Doug Henwood wrote:
Marx was big on the innovative power of capitalism - both its
penchant for creating new technologies and new wants. It's not hard
to relate that to a theory of job creation, even though many Marxists
seem temperamentally inclined to emphasize destruction.
For a system of thought that thinks of itself as offering a better
understanding of capitalism than offered by bourgeois theory, it'd be
pretty odd not to have a theory of job creation. Schumpeter's
"creative destruction" has suffered from criminally excessive
quotation, but it is shorthand for a theory, and one that's entirely
consistent with Marx(ism).
except that we (the good guys) emphasize destructive creation.
BTW, the neoclassical school of growth theory (led by Solow) does not
incorporate "creative destruction" or "destructive creation" in their
theory. There's something called K, there's something called L. They
grow, perhaps augmented by "technology" and/or other "factors of
production" such as H (human "capital). These homogeneous inputs grow,
causing Y (homogeneous output) to grow.
I wrote:
> "Marx's theory in CAPITAL (volume 1) is mostly about job destruction.
> This focuses on a representative industry, i.e., one that represents
> the abstract general laws of accumulation. But there are also
> processes of job creation in Marx: if aggregate accumulation is fast
> enough, that increases aggregate employment (which may or may not
> raise real wages enough to reduce the rate of surplus-value)."
On Mar 30, 2007, Gernot Koehler wrote:
Thanks. What I find a bit perplexing about that is that there is
little or no difference between Marx's and the mainstream view on job
creation. When you replace "aggregate accumulation" in the above
statement by "GDP growth" (which is a synonym), then you read Marx,
Capital as saying: "if GDP growth is fast enough, that increases
aggregate employment." In other words, Marx and the mainstream agree
on this point.<<
There are some points that all economists agree on. Harrod's "natural"
rate of growth says that employment (labor-power demand) rises if real
GDP grows faster than labor productivity growth. This is true by the
definition of labor productivity (real GDP/worker hired), so it
shouldn't be surprising that even Marxian political economists agree.
(There's a more empirical version in Okun's "law," which says that if
real GDP rises fast enough (over 2 or 3 percent per year, depending on
the era and the country under consideration), the unemployment rate
falls.)
Interestingly, the neoclassical emphasis on "total factor production"
(and their deemphasis of labor productivity) loses the link between
employment and real GDP growth. Perhaps that's because they assume
continuous full employment in their growth theory.
However, it's theoretically wrong to say that "aggregate accumulation"
is a synonym for (real) GDP growth. Crucially, capitalist accumulation
depends on the rate of profit and the availability & cost of credit;
in the short run, GDP production depends only on demand, unless
profitability is abnormally low. Real GDP does not have to grow in
step, since in theory we might see (say) Keynesian fiscal policy that
does not promote profits or a greater flow of credit. In practice,
however, accumulation and real GDP growth are close to synonymous.
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let
people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
