>And no not everything is fine,
>
I don't think everything is fine. I think right now we're on the verge
of a nasty recession, maybe worse. It might even have significant
political consequences, who knows? But (a) it has no obvious connection
with any supposed long-term tendency of FROP; and (b) no such tendency
has been visible in the last 20 or 30 years. The last three recessions
have proceeded in *descending* order of severity. Prior to that, 35
years went by with only one severe recession. The upcoming one might
well be nastier than the last two, but looking back on the last 50
years, there just is no long term pattern discernible.
>The prediction is not of sluggish accumulation or collapse but violent struggle for control of investment outlets for a growing stock of idle money capital and a breakdown of international order;
>
Breakdown of international order? In the twentieth century, sure. Right now, international order has never been stronger. War among the imperialist powers is almost literally unthinkable. Lots of violent things are happening, but again, they're showing no discernible long-term tendency to get worse. And certainly not due to a FROP.
>struggle for extra profits through mechanisms of unequal exchange;
>
The leading destination for investment in the developing world is China,
which is closing the gap with the leading economies at a faster rate
than any country in history. The struggle for extra profits is occurring
in the placid confines of the negotiating rooms of international hotels.
That's capital in bloom of health.
>intensification of struggle within the abode of production due to the rolling back of gains made in the course of so called golden ages of accumulation (say shaving of overtime, firing of unionists, non enforcement of safety standards);
>
Really? To me it looks like struggle within the abode of production has
never been more absent within the advanced countries. The working class
has never been less class conscious in its history.
> and limits on the mixed economy to stabilize the economy at any where near full employment.
>
>
This is a prediction Marx made?
>And no the profit rate does not fall towards zero. What are you quoting? The question is at what
>point does the mass of surplus value become insufficient for further accumulation. This is long before
>the profit rate falls to zero.
>
>
That's what I mean. The ROP is supposed to fall *toward* zero over time. Obviously it never gets there because before it can do so -- quoting Marx -- "the violent destruction of capital not by relations external to it, but rather as a condition of its self-preservation" intervenes and in this way "advice is given it to be gone and to give room to a higher state of social production."
This is what I mean when I talk about predictions that should be let go of.
Seth