[OPE-L:2066] Re: May Day Greetings

glevy@acnet.pratt.edu (glevy@acnet.pratt.edu)
Thu, 2 May 1996 17:09:21 -0700

[ show plain text ]

Thanks, Iwao. [Iwao is one of the founding members of OPE-L . He has put
a lot of effort into this project, e.g. by establishing the OPE-L WWW
archives site, and always has interesting things to say].

> I pointed the most serious problem related to that lies in the current
> structure of japanese capitalism that continously creates excess of
> monetary capital.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. Does this relate to the question
of fictitious capital? BTW, how was your speech received? [with
thunderous applause, I hope].

> [I don't think I can list up ***all*** determinants of unemployment.
> (but in what sense do you say ***all***, Jerry?)]

You made a good effort. What I want people to think about is *all* of the
variables from the most abstract to the most concrete that determine
unemployment. You may recall that Anu Shaikh, (who has been very busy with
administrative details at the New School such as being part of the search
process for new faculty) raised a similar question in October or
November (he suggested we discuss the determinants of unemployment *and*
inflation -- an obviously important topic of contemporary relevance).

Given my explanation of the relation historically of May Day to the
8-hour-day movement, I am somewhat surprised that you didn't mention the
(un)employment effect of capital's drive to increase absolute surplus
value and working class struggles to reduce the length of the workweek.
I believe that topic connects with another thread on subjectivity
(right, Massimo, Mike W., Mike L?).

> But as long as domestic labour remains as domestic,
> it is not under capital - wage labour relation.

Yes, but capital nonetheless benefits by the unpaid labor time of
domestic laborers. How does that labor time enter into the customary
social and moral element of the value of the commodity labor power?

> and allows those who do domestic labour into labour market, value of
> commodity labour-power and wage rate will decrease.

Will the wage rate *necessarily* decrease if domestic labor becomes
(increasingly) wage-labor?

> I hope the discussion about the general law of capitalist accumulation
> would develope toward the former problem - inevitability of unemployment
> under capitalism.

I would like to have that discussion as well, but I'd like to know first
what you understand the expression "inevitability" to mean in political

In OPE-L Solidarity,