but, that wasn't what i wanted to ask.
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
> Of course as private capital formation stagnates, the state must issue
> debt to finance a compensatory level of economic activity. But since such
> activity is also unproductive and does not itself produce any new value
> or surplus value, it can only be paid off by the state's future claims on
> social surplus value. High levels of state spending may increase the
> level of economic activity in the present while compounding crisis in
> the long run. In the 70s it took the form of runaway inflation.
okay. an hypothesis: to the extent to which the state now avoids the inflationary premises of keynsian spending, what are the measures being introduced which would enable the state to 'guarantee' a future surplus without resorting to inflationary measures? i think the 'answer' to this might explain the shift to things like workfare/work-for-the-dole, prison labour, slave-like forms of work, and - as doug has shown - the attempt to use the courts and the state to impose imf-like obligations on those in debt which compels them to future work. {as an aside, i think the proposed amendment to the US constitution to give the state the power to conscript labour should also be viewed in this light} what do you think rakesh? others?
also, maybe more interestingly, if the keynsian 'solution' to overproduction (well, maybe war) advanced inflation, then what are the 'spin-offs' from these new kinds of compulsion/forms of work? what problems does it pose for accumulation?
angela