[lbo-talk] an alternative conceptual framework.

[Jim Devine]

On 1/18/06, Marvin Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca> wrote:
>The conceptual problem arises, it would seem, because Marx did not
anticipate the great growth of the public sector and service economy
and integrate this into his theory. After all, why would he have?  He
concluded the the changing organic composition of capital and falling
rate of profit would produce ever deeper crises and immiseration and
finally the replacement of capitalism by public ownership - if not in
his lifetime, than in the short [long?] run.


>There would no longer be private ownership and surplus value and
profit, making the issue of "productive" and "unproductive" labour
moot. Under socialism, the continuing replacement of variable with
labour-saving constant capital would not result in joblessness and
distress but more leisure time for the working population and the
means to enjoy it. You have to think if he had been able to witness
the unexpected expansion and relative stability of capitalism,
fostered by state intervention and accompanied by the concomitant rise
of a parallel "indirectly productive" public sector workforce, he
would have further developed the theory pretty much along the lines
you describe below. <

thanks. I was trying to "further develop his theory" rather than
hashing over old quotes.

BTW, I think the role of the state in stabilizing capitalism works
best for the rich countries, those that benefit most from the
imperialist world system.

Also, I don't think Marx's adherence to the falling rate of profit
theory (rising organic composition) can be assumed. Evidence is mixed,
since he never finished writing CAPITAL.

--
Jim Devine
"The price one pays for pursuing any profession or calling is an
intimate knowledge of its ugly side." -- James Baldwin

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm