Greenspan IQ query

rc-am rcollins at
Fri Apr 7 00:28:03 PDT 2000

Rakesh wrote:

> size in the abstract does not matter; of course there are masses of people
> in this or that part of the world. the question is whether they can be made
> available where capital can exploit them.

Which is also perhaps why it doesn't make sense to talk about it in the terms of overpopulation/underpopulation, no? (Nor for that matter to talk about 'labour shortage' as the ebb and flows of population numbers.)

> We tend to think that
> bourgeois fear is one of overpopulation but as Greenspan shows it's the
> opposite.

I disagree. What Greenspan shows is a frustration at the 'extent' to which the reserve army has been demobilised, which, if you followed your initial comment, I would have thought you would also. In that sense, what is 'overpopulation' but those defined as 'surplus populations' with respect to production; and what is 'underpopulation' (given the massive numbers of the reserve army around the world as Ian noted) other than a term denoting an insufficient mobilisation, if not potential source of resistance and instability? Which is why the Enterprise Institute ravings about instability in China is important to note I would think.

Angela _________

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list