Has the Council decided whether to allow Europe's shift back to social democracy to "succeed" in the sense of reducing unemployment and increasing real wages--thus defanging any popular movement by showing that the system can be properly managed from the inside? Or has it decided to make Europe's shift back to social democracy fail--thus demonstrating that any attempt to raise the standard of living of the toilers can only create political chaos?
I favor the first: lullng potential oppositionists into believing the fool's dream that social democracy is still *possible* in a globalized economy can only help increase the rate of surplus value in the long run. If the first, then we will need more tame intellectuals to talk of how the market can be managed in the interest of society. May I suggest that the necessary steps be taken immediately to complete the turning of Dani Rodrik? His recent _New Republic_ article shows great promise.
There is more news about the rate of surplus value. Our technoexploitation working group has estimated that a further 5% of value can be transformed into surplus as a result of improving scanner, camera, and data processing technologies. D.B., P.S., H.V., and M.F. report that "club cards" that allow real-time tracking of purchase patterns and individually-specific discounts boost gross supermarket margins by 2%, and that real-time scanner data enforces a 3% increase in the number of items scanned and customers served per hour. Not to mention the possibilities for surveillance by the carceral state opened by the availability of computer-processed AMEX, VISA, Mastercard, and ATM data, and video cameras erected at intersections under the pretext of catching red-light runners.
--Minitru