Workers-Control-Over-Prod
8th April 2012, 05:09
Capital is identified as such by its constant growth, sucking more and more live labor into its process. When there is no more growth of profit in certain economic sectors (such as in the current computer chip companies which are nearly fully automated) investment into production becomes a huge problem as capital does not see an opportunity to reproduce and grow. As the productive forces are heightened the "Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall" occurs and falling investment hinders production; falling growth in one sector, such as the computer chip sector (which is highly reliant on socialised or state investment for this market reason), leads to production problems in other sectors, but especially the Means of Production sector.
Notice, as the Rate of Profit in the US has fallen from 50% in 1850 to 2% in 2010, the sector that has suffered the most has been the M.o.P. sector, of which the most notable country in this sector is Germany which has been in a virtual recession hovering around the 1-3% GDP margin since years.
Growth, or rather the lack of growth, is therefore a very real, highly economically viral threat to the production process. This might seem rather obvious, while even a significant amount of mainstream economists and media have ingrained this basic assumption about capitalism.
Also, when setting goals in capitalism to change into for example different energy sources, more income equality, changing over to more environmental resources, so long capital does not see higher profitability to accumulate capital in these sectors, you cannot use a market to change to these. Therefore the excuse or proposition of capitalist politicians and ideologues that the market can all of a sudden make a rational decision about this, is absurd. Even government subsidies to new technologies is not all too helpful for the capitalist system, and exactly a problem that this author of this article seems to not get.
http://www.preservenet.com/studies/FallacyCapitalismGrowth.pdf
The worst thing about the Marxists’ claim that we cannot shorten work hours because capitalism requires growth is that it is defeatist.
That while Marx wrote about capitalism, at the time in which labor unions were virtually powerless, but more importantly that growth really would have suffered had there been a drastic cut in work hours, he does not seem to notice. That there was no State to logically/socially invest into increasing into the productive forces through taxes at that time (which in turn happened after WW2, but in fact only increased the productive forces to increase the workers' productivity and suppressed workers to work the same time, for the near-stagnant real wages), he also does not seem to notice.
When environmentalists say that shorter work hours and slower growth can help us
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and Marxists reply that it is impossible because
growth is necessary to capitalism, the Marxists’ dogmatism is just making them
obstruct a change that is needed to help deal with global warming, peak oil, and other
environmental issues.
If work hours were drastically cut in the United States to match the requirements of what nature can handle, the private companies that would try to make more money (in a system who's sole purpose this is) would get the investment and there would be an insolvency of the companies who are not as profitable to capital, massive crisis. Sadly, i have not seen a lot better arguments against Marxist logic. You do sort of have to feel sorry for these fools...
Notice, as the Rate of Profit in the US has fallen from 50% in 1850 to 2% in 2010, the sector that has suffered the most has been the M.o.P. sector, of which the most notable country in this sector is Germany which has been in a virtual recession hovering around the 1-3% GDP margin since years.
Growth, or rather the lack of growth, is therefore a very real, highly economically viral threat to the production process. This might seem rather obvious, while even a significant amount of mainstream economists and media have ingrained this basic assumption about capitalism.
Also, when setting goals in capitalism to change into for example different energy sources, more income equality, changing over to more environmental resources, so long capital does not see higher profitability to accumulate capital in these sectors, you cannot use a market to change to these. Therefore the excuse or proposition of capitalist politicians and ideologues that the market can all of a sudden make a rational decision about this, is absurd. Even government subsidies to new technologies is not all too helpful for the capitalist system, and exactly a problem that this author of this article seems to not get.
http://www.preservenet.com/studies/FallacyCapitalismGrowth.pdf
The worst thing about the Marxists’ claim that we cannot shorten work hours because capitalism requires growth is that it is defeatist.
That while Marx wrote about capitalism, at the time in which labor unions were virtually powerless, but more importantly that growth really would have suffered had there been a drastic cut in work hours, he does not seem to notice. That there was no State to logically/socially invest into increasing into the productive forces through taxes at that time (which in turn happened after WW2, but in fact only increased the productive forces to increase the workers' productivity and suppressed workers to work the same time, for the near-stagnant real wages), he also does not seem to notice.
When environmentalists say that shorter work hours and slower growth can help us
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and Marxists reply that it is impossible because
growth is necessary to capitalism, the Marxists’ dogmatism is just making them
obstruct a change that is needed to help deal with global warming, peak oil, and other
environmental issues.
If work hours were drastically cut in the United States to match the requirements of what nature can handle, the private companies that would try to make more money (in a system who's sole purpose this is) would get the investment and there would be an insolvency of the companies who are not as profitable to capital, massive crisis. Sadly, i have not seen a lot better arguments against Marxist logic. You do sort of have to feel sorry for these fools...