Capitalism seems to have momentum that is largely dependent on politics of division. If one side of the division withdraws its resistance, where does the inertia of capitalism drive it?
martin schiller
--------------
Are you suggesting that the people whose lives are being destroyed sit on their hands?
It's the wrong argument and wrong analogy. Capitalism requires social cooperation and passivity, going along with the program. When it (the class that is) doesn't get that cooperation such as going to work and obeying the rules, its political and social intitutions begin an escalation of force, coersion, pentalities, and punishments.
On the the other hand, a general strike works in something like the way you suggest in the sense that no work means no profit. But that can only go on so long. Greece, Spain, sometimes France, Egypt and other places are in the depth of these battles.
Take a look at the austerity measures. In effect they cripple resistance because they take away the various safety net programs like unemployment, welfare, health benefits which makes it more and more difficult to resist dumped down wages and bad work conditions. The reserve army of unemployed keep those employed in line and passive because they know there are fifteen people waiting for their job, no matter how shitty.
The reason for these austerity measures has nothing to do with economics. They are about social disciplining the rising resistance of the labor force, with the side benefit of making more money loaning and renting these services through credit to pay necessary bills like food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and schooling.
CG