> Angela, the problem is that the infrastructure is not intact in many places
> of the world that the industrial reserve army of labor can be mobilized
> even if it were not to resist. In terms of infrastructural invesment, the
> world remains horribly under-capitalized. It makes no sense to refer as the
> Keynesians do to the loss of a scarcity of capital...
<ahem>
I was not referring to a loss of scarcity of capital... You think the problem is lack of infrastructural development; ok, but to some extent that seems a very partial answer to me. I'd written: "insufficient mobilisation, if not potential source of resistance and instability" -- which is meant to imply a much broader predicament for capital on (eg) China than that afforded by the answer of "infrastructure". (I also think that Malthus is not reducible to an overpopulation panic, but rather is the _naturalisation_ of the question of, in your words, "population base available for valorisation", a question made eternal through a dropping of the latter term -- ie., 'population base' sans 'valorisation'; the very possibility of thinking of 'surplus' or 'shortage' as demographic terms in the first place.)
I'm not clear on one thing though: Are you saying that this is likely to be an effective strategy or not? It won't be very effective, even if China's development provides the basis for it, if the Chinese Govt can't guarantee compliance, will it?
Angela _________