[WS:] I do not have time to look up the numbers, but I wonder if that is true for mfg as well as the service sector. My suspicion is that any recovery in profitability would be driven by the service sector, which is particularly large in the "first" world and thus weighs heavily on the global economy as a whole.
My other suspicion is that what is called "mfg" from a standard industrial classification viewpoint (e.g. ISIC or NAICS) becomes more like services in the first world, due to the fact that components are manufactured in the third world and simply assembled in the first world (cf. cars.) While industrial classifications make no distinction between manufacturing of components and the assembly of these components into complete units, I think those two types activities differ in terms of their profitability: low for pre-fab components and high for the complete unit. This can also obscure the profitability picture.
Another point: I agree with Carrol that capitalism will not fall by itself, it must be abolished by a revolutionary action. However, the prospect for success of such an action depends on the overall health of capitalism. My hypothetical scenario is that first the malaise of capitalist anarchy must undermine the institutional foundations of the capitalist ruling class (e.g. through depression, war, or both,) but it will take a vanguard party AND an economic opportunity to move things into a non-capitalist direction.
Wojtek
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Dennis Claxton <ddclaxton at earthlink.net>wrote:
> At 08:13 AM 8/16/2010, Wojtek S wrote:
>
> Marv, you seem to be missing the 800-pound gorilla in the room -
>> profitability.
>>
>
>
> You hear that a lot, but it's not so obvious as an 800-pound gorilla:
>
>
>
> http://www.zcommunications.org/capitalist-crisis-radical-renewal-by-leo-panitch
>
> "when you actually look at the numbers, what you do see is that profits
> have actually recovered from the lows that they were. They're not at the
> peak they were at in the 1960s, but that was a unique period."
>
> [...]
>
> Sasha Lilley: Various Marxist critics have argued that the financialization
> of the economy is capital’s means of addressing the underlying stagnation of
> the “real economy,” of industry in decline. The argument goes that the
> current crisis is part of a long downturn starting in the 1970s and
> capitalism’s ill-health has been masked by a shift into profit-making
> through all sorts of incomprehensible derivatives and forms of speculation.
> You three see things quite differently. How so?
>
>
>
> Sam Gindin: To elaborate a little more on what Leo was saying: part of the
> role of financeonce you see it in terms of capitalismis to discipline and
> restructure the so-called real economy. It's been fundamental to that,
> imposing discipline on every factory to be more competitive or finance will
> go somewhere else, to reallocate capital across several sectors, venture
> capital, but much more generally. So finance has been fundamental to that.
>
>
>
> The other way that finance has been absolutely crucial too, is to
> understanding capitalism in terms of its imperial dimension. It's been
> fundamental to capitalism actually penetrating other countries, imposing
> certain conditions if they want the finance, putting the United States in a
> position where the American state is responsible for managing capitalism
> more generally; and for integrating the working classin addition to them
> using credit in the macro sense that it keeps the economy goingthe
> involvement of workers in the circuits of capitalism in terms of housing and
> pensions and their assets rising. It’s also been a socialization of workers.
>
>
>
> Now in terms of specifically the question of decline, if you leave aside
> looking at specific numbers for a second and just think about what's
> happened over the last quarter of a century, it actually looks like one of
> the most dynamic periods from a capitalist perspectivenot from a worker
> perspective, but from a capitalist perspective. It's a period in which
> you've penetrated China. You've penetrated the former Soviet Union. You're
> now penetrating the enormous potential of the Indian market. You've seen a
> powerful commodification of things that used to be seen as part the Commons.
> Part of what government provides has been privatized as sources of
> accumulation. You've seen very radical breakthroughs in technology over this
> period in terms of that kind of dynamism.
>
>
>
> And when you actually look at the numbers, what you do see is that profits
> have actually recovered from the lows that they were. They're not at the
> peak they were at in the 1960s, but that was a unique period. And the
> restructuring of the economy has been very dramatic across sectors. If
> you're looking at the American economy, it has restructured geographically.
> It has restructured in terms of what sectors are dominant right now. The
> importance of business services has become a very fundamental part of the
> economy, especially in terms of the American global role. High tech in the
> U.S. has grown dramatically. The U.S. has been importing a lot but it has
> also been exporting a lot.
>
>
>
> So I don't think there's been a lot of credibility to the argument of the
> American economy having declined. The real problem we have is that all this
> restructuring has gone on and workers have basically been pretty passive
> victims. They've accepted this. They haven't in any way been acting as a
> barrier in terms of putting other social goals or social values on the
> agenda. And that's allowed capitalismAmerican capitalism in particularto
> restructure at will. And it's done really well in terms of accumulation.
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>