On Feb 28, 2013, at 1:37 PM, nathan tankus wrote:
> why not?
This question is purely terminological. In any minimally free economic system a certain level of unemployment--called "frictional"-- is inevitable simply because people are always changing jobs and because some jobs are necessarily seasonal. Then there's the matter of the "employable" population base--does that count only people who would like to work at the prevailing wage for their trade or those who would work only at a much higher wage? And then there's the question of what counts as "employment." Students are (or should be) occupied full time at the task of learning--are they "employed?" And what if a society (capitalist or not) is civilized enough to provide a decent basic income for everyone--is someone fully occupied in artistic creation, or domestic activity like child raising, "employed?"
But disregarding all these--which apply every bit as much to a non- capitalist as to a capitalist society--the answer absolutely must be positive simply because capitalist societies in the past have functioned at a full-employment level: for instance in 1944, during World War II, there was "full employment" in capitalist societies as diverse as the USA, the Third Reich, and the USSR. The only formal condition for "full employment" under capitalism is a sufficient repressive apparatus to prevent workers from striking or bargaining to increase wages. When Mr. Webb of the CPUSA, which played a major role in US capitalism's repressive apparatus during the second imperialist world war, says that full employment is impossible under capitalism he is also saying (under his breath) "unless the bosses once again commission us to prevent strikes."
Shane Mage
"L'après-vie, c'est une auberge espagnole. L'on n'y trouve que ce qu'on a apporté."
Bardo Thodol