> What is the explanation for that historical fact? Or is it merely a
> fact, and expectations are based merely on the premise that what has
> been and is will be? (That is a good rule of thumb, but subject to all
> the hazards of any rule of thumb.)
If I'm not mistaken, Marx's explanation (I don't know of any better) would be the self-propelling process of capital accumulation, which requires the purchase of more and more labor power, which is the only source of capital. It would theoretically continue until the capitalist system smashes up, which will be who knows when?
On Saturday, January 3, 2004, at 04:01 AM, Gregory Geboski wrote:
> Sure, but not in the 21st century United States, where the vast
> majority have been part of the wage labor-commodity nexus for some
> time. Unemployed and underemployed workers are still among "paid"
> workers, in that they have little option beyond selling their labor
> power. Seen many independent yeoman producers lately? And even the
> truly awe-inspiring marketing geniuses of the US of A are running out
> of "domestic sphere" to commodify. The US, most definitely including
> its human capital (such a perfect phrase), all but defines "mature
> market."
I'm definitely not well informed in the economics field, but I would be inclined to agree with this. It would appear that welfare and worker retraining programs are not getting very far in this country because operating them in an efficient way in order to turn U.S. non-workers or under-used workers into sources of surplus value just isn't worth it to U.S. corporations, when surplus value can be pumped out of overseas workers so much more cheaply. Hence the trend is toward "outsourcing" rather than employing more U.S. citizens.
> To my view, the role of the contemporary US (and the Bushies seem to
> agree with me) is to be capitalism's enforcer. This is an important
> and necessary role. It will probably send the US straight down the
> shitter (maybe sooner, maybe later), but somebody has to do it.
Would appreciate some elaboration of the mechanism by which you think it will send the US in this direction. You may well be right, but I would like some more detail, just for my own edification.
> And while an exploited, insecure, fearful, purposely ignorant
> population may not make for the ideal capitalist growth medium, it's
> sure good for producing people who are ready to jump behind "their"
> army as it kicks serious butt.
So far, yes. But there does seem to be a rising dissent about being stuck in Iraq that reminds me somewhat of the late Vietnam War period. And being stuck in Syria, Iran, etc., etc., on top of Iraq would not help. Sooner or later, the draft would have to be reinstated, and that would not sit well at all with lots of moms (and pops) of draft-age kids (today it would be probably both boys and girls) out there.
I really think Dean or another Demo would have a winning line if they had the guts to go in this direction. Obviously, it would make them appear seriously "unpatriotic" and "letting down the troops."
> And to sacrifice and to work harder. And to keep consuming at least
> at current levels, even if that's getting harder to do.
Hey, consuming's fun! And as long as the credit card companies keep sending out applications, we can go on forever, right? Perhaps the downfall of U.S. capitalism, and maybe world capitalism, will come when Visa and Mastercard realize that they'd better take a breather.
> Ever get the idea that, right now, a working class that flexed its
> muscles in the United States would have world-historical effects
> orders of magnitude beyond anything that could be produced elsewhere?
> And that the ruling class knows it, even if they know little else? And
> that, even if contemporary US free-market-Paradise capitalism can't
> keep an electric grid working; and provides health "care" through the
> most maniacally stupid, bureaucratic and inefficient system
> imaginable; and arrests child "terrorists" because it can't make a
> database that cross-references names to dates of birth; that this
> system is still wondrously efficient at making damn sure that the
> aforementioned working-class muscle-flexing *will not* happen? And
> that the seemingly debilitating lower-wage, lower-security,
> lower-employment, higher-exploitation model in fact fits such a
> society very well, and barring an internal challenge should pretty
> much continue the way it is? I do.
Proletarians of the U.S., unite! You have nothing to lose but your S.U.V.'s and flat-screen TVs, and a world to gain!
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ A sympathetic Scot summed it all up very neatly in the remark, 'You should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest and folk-dancing.' -- Sir Arnold Bax