On 6/4/07, s.artesian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually think that assumption is unwarranted, that consumption by workers is never, ok, ok, I exaggerate, almost never the issue for capitalism.
though it's true that the role of underconsumption has been exaggerated, it's not true that consumption by workers is irrelevant. My research (in my dissertation and after) indicates that there are two general types of regimes that can face a capitalist system (or a capitalist country without much international trade, such as the US before 1970 or so): (1) strong labor; and (2) weak labor. The form of the crisis differs between these two. In the first case, the normal excessively expansionist tendencies of capitalism (the tendency toward over-accumulation) are expressed as they were during the late 1960s, as falling unemployment, increased uppityness of workers, and squeezed profits, which is expressed in slower growth and inflation (i.e., stagflation). In the second case, these tendencies are expressed as they were during the late 1920s (in my interpretation) with accumulation growing too fast relative to consumer demand. This does not cause a simple recession but instead makes the economy increasing unstable, i.e., prone to shocks of various sorts (such as the 1929 crash). the recession, when it happens, reinforces the weakness of labor. This can cause an underconsumption trap. Accumulation is blocked by unused capacity, debt, and pessimism. So businesses try to restore profits (hurt badly by the recession) by cutting wages and speeding up the labor process. This depresses consumption relative to production, making the recession worse, as in the early 1930s. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
