Isn't Jacoby denying that the reproduction of capital depends at late stages of accumulation on imperialist policy, viz. imperial rivalry for control over raw materials and rents, rivalry for unbridled access to zones of investment for a mounting stock of idle money capital, and limitations on the economic decision making of neo colonial states to create an open world market in which value transfers to the imperialist countries can be realized. So if imperial policy is not structurally required--that is, if it's not an automatic or inevitable consequence of the accumulation of capital-- then shouldn't we take policy differences among politicians even more seriously? Jacoby is probably a Obama supporter--he is certainly not a Marxist-- so why are we being asked to consult this piece by those who don't think there is a dime's worth of difference?
I don't see how it makes sense for a "sit it out" person to commend Jacoby's critique of orthodox Marxism.
Now to the extent that the accumulation of capital does come to depend on the retention of of so much of the produced surplus value that the consumption of the rentier class is threatened, the rentier class will then throttle accumulation--the mass of surplus value has become objectively short at this point-- but this creates the possibility of a general crisis of unemployment and overproduction, papered over to some extent for some time by easy credit policies.
To revive accumulation the rentier class must capture (or retain capture of) the state to discipline labor and pursue imperial policy. To the extent that the state's fiscal existence depends on a resumption of accumulation--otherwise social welfare costs will skyrocket just as taxable national income plunges--it is likely to accede to the demands of rentiers. No third party can change that. But that argument does not follow from Jacoby's critique of a mechanical theory of imperialism! On the contrary.
At any rate, the good news is that working class will not necessarily sacrifice itself to subdidize the imperial policy on which the growth of profits depends. It will fight a defensive battle. It may and should fight a war of position through electoral politics but that will surely not be enough. But if it does not even fight a war of position in the electoral sphere, it will not have steeled itself for the struggles ahead.
Abu Hartal _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/