--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>>
> But don't forget Engels' point, which is as true
> today as it was more
> than a century ago:
>
>
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1892/letters/92_01_06.htm>
>
[WS:] There is one major difference - back in Engles' days land was chiefly the means of production. That is, living of the land was some kind of alternative to factory work.
Today, by contrast, land is chiefly the means of consumption, or conspicuous consumption I may add. That is to say, people cannot live of the land, but rather earn income elsewhere and park their money on the land and perhaps their home built on it.
The value of land under these two systems is determined in very different ways. For land as the means of production - it is determined by its productive capacity i.e. the value of commodity it can generate. For land as the means of consumption, it is determined by two factors - the earning potential of the consumers and the transaction cost of convenient access (i.e. cost of transportation.)
Land-as-the-means-of-production can effectively offset and dilute the class conflict generated by capitalist mode of production. Exploited workers have the option of acquiring land as an alternative means of production without possessing much of capital - al they need is the willingness to relocate, take a risk, and endure initial hardship. Land-as-the-means-of-consumption cannot offset the class conflict produced by capialism. Au contraire, it exacerbates it, as capitalist exploitation deprives workers of acquiring valuable land. While remote land may be within thier reach, transaction cost (e.g. commute to work) is prohibitive.
If this analysis is correct, rising cost of gasoline ($135 today and rising, he, he, he) will undercut Amerikan capitalism more effectively than any party politics. That is, while cheap land may still be abundant in the flyover country, that land willl be off limits to most people who live from their work. Consequently, conflicts generated by US capitalism no longer have the safety valve in the form of land settlement as they did in the "good olden days."
>From that point of view, party politcs is increasingly
reflective of this conflict without a safety valve.
Thus far, Repugs have been far better than Democrats
in capturing the disconent of the working / middle
class and exploiting it to their advantage. However,
their strategy, which relies mainly on finding
scapegots for the popular discontent, will reach its
natural limits, as it is incapable of alleviating the
class conflict.
That gives a chance for people like Obama, who may be willing and able to work with the progressive elements of capital to offset (if not resolve) that conflict in a way that Europeans did - through massive investments in the public sphere (transportation, urbanizaton, human services, etc.) This is perhaps the only modern way of addressing class conflict - as the probability of a revoltion Lenin- or Mao- style is close to nil.
Wojtek