Re: [OPE-L] SV: [OPE-L] what is irrational in the functioning of capitalism?

From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Tue Dec 05 2006 - 11:27:57 EST

--- Paul Cockshott <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK> wrote:

> Now try to tell your students that capitalists get
> their profits because workers produce their wages in
> a
> few seconds (8/8001 hrs.) and the rest of the time
> they work for the capitalist and see how convinced
> they will be.
> ------------------------------
> Paul
> I would not be attempting to convince the
> capitalists
> I would be addressing the workers. I think that in
> The circumstances I would have little difficulty in
> Convincing them that this was the most outrageous
> Exploitation of labour imaginable!
Paul, there is no need to assume that your students
are capitalists. They are just young kids interested
in learning about the world and things.
> Ajit
> Put a few more zeros on the right hand
> side of the production equation and you will see how
> ridiculous the argument will begin to sound, and
> particularly when you will have billions of people
> living with only few thousand workers working.
> ----------------------------------
> Paul
> Why should this situation ever eventuate, if the
> rate of profit is so high, and there is so much
> surplus value available for accumulation then
> capitalists will reinvest leading to higher
> employment.
I think this is the most important theoretical
sticking point for you. The point I'm trying to make
is made by workers all over the world every day these
days, i.e. the spector of "jobless growth". The
capitalists do keep reinvesting their profits but the
technical changes are taking place simultaneously and
its nature is such that though the growth in total
output are taking place but simultaneously either
employment is stagnant or even declining. I'm just
trying to work out the theoretical consequences of
this scenario. In India the left is arguing for a move
toward 'labor intensive' job creating technology or
minimum employment guarantee etc. I wrote a short
piece on this kind of scenario in EPW sometime ago (it
came out on July 2, 2005). I attach the draft file for
> More generally though, I don't see why you think
> that positing examples that are so far out of the
> range of the normal is enlightening. The fact that
> examples with these sort of ratios do not exist
> indicates that there are dynamical laws which
> prevent their occurrence.
That's the only way I know how to do theory. I think
to think that there is a dynamical law that prevents
the things that do not exist from occurring is to
argue that whatever does not exist cannot exist--does
not make sense to me. Cheers, ajit sinha

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 00:00:04 EST