Jim heartfield wrote:
> In message <354CB684.14ABCC7D at netcomuk.co.uk>, Mark Jones
> <Jones_M at netcomuk.co.uk> writes
> >The problem I have with K-waves is that there is no more evidence that they
> >exist than that you get showers in April. I read Patrick's piece but I still
> >don't believe in it. What's happening in the US is the flipside of what's not
> >happening elsewhere and anyway is influenced, I think, by the ongoing rewards
> >from winning the Cold War. Just where is the technology for a new K-upswing? The
> >Net? Give me a break.
> Much as I disagree with him on other points, I think Mark is quite right
> here.
>
> Orthodox Marxism (like Shaikh) is rather too influenced by the
> experiences of the seventies when explaining the 'profit squeeze' was
> the important battle against revisionism. Over-emphasising the rate of
> profit (and its tendential fall) as the absolute indicator of capital's
> regressive tendencies, led to a one-sided reading of Marx' theory of
> accumulation and crisis. Most pointedly the false prognosis that a
> rising rate of profit equals a positive development.
>
> The point is that whereas in the seventies a falling rate of profit
> expressed the barrier of overaccumulation, the economic conditions we
> inherit from that period are shaped by a decade or more of low growth.
>
> In fact today's historically high surpluses are more indicative of a
> failure to invest and to revolutionise the means of production. There
> are some signs of investment in computer technology in the US, but this
> has been pointedly unimpressive in its effect on output. More to the
> point there has been no substantial reorganisation of production. That
> in itself means that more of the surplus is redirected towards stock-
> market speculation or unproductive consumption.
>
> Engels described a similar situation in a letter to Bebel in 28 October
> 1885
>
> 'by choosing to invest his money in this way rather than in new
> industrial undertakings the money capitalist is admitting how rotten the
> whole business looks to him. And this fear of new investments and old
> enterprises, which had already manifested itself in the crisis of 1867,
> is the main reason why things are not bought to an acute crisis.'
>
> Fraternally
> --
> Jim heartfield