>And finally, I think understanding this non-profit maximising behaviour is
>vital for a full understanding of capitalism - there are tensions within
>capital, tensions whose source becomes apparent as soon as view capital as
>embedded in a human society where labour power is not an abstract input
>but something which must be created and controlled in a manner appropriate
>to the maintaince of the capitalist social relation.
But the maintenance of the capitalist social relation (by the capitalists) is ultimately about profit maximization, no? Why else are capitalists interested in controlling the workplace?
You say:
>Outsourcing's payoff seems to be on the level of organisation, rather than
>profits - fragmenting your workforce on the one hand, and tightening your
>focus on the other (the 'focus on core business' argument).
Bosses don't want a fragmented workforce for aesthetic reasons, but because it keeps workers from colluding and, horrors, joining unions. And "tightening the focus" is about sticking with what you know and with a market where you're known, which is also ultimately about profit maximization. It used to be thought, way back in the 1960s, that conglomeratization was a shield against sectoral cycles, but that wisdom was junked in favor of the idea that diffuse foci made you a jack of many trades and master of none. But that's not about aesthetics or craft - it too is about profit.
So I don't get your point really.
Doug