Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 09:24:24 +0100
From: Hugh Rodwell <m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se>
Subject: M-TH: Re: Japan, overproduction & Keynesianism


Rob S writes in response to Dennis R:

>Has Japan, which must soon recognise a scenario so threatening as to
>warrant very radical action, open to it the option of merely returning to
>the traditionally Nippo-capitalist model you so succinctly (and
>compellingly) describe above and looking after its region?

"Japan" is a figment. What's at issue is the dominant group of
policy-makers. In other words the faction of the bourgeoisie controlling
the Japanese imperialist state, within the world imperialist network still
under the weakening but so far irreplaceable hegemony of the US imperialist
state. All bourgeois options are open to such a group, it all depends on
its political base and its ability to stand up against the working class
and the other national and international factions of the bourgeoisie.
"Merely" returning begs the question. The interpenetration of Japanese and
foreign capital makes it very unlikely. The way the traditional national
political base of small-holding farmers and other petty-bourgeois strata
has been worn down over the years makes it doubly unlikely. Any feasible
solutions will have great international repercussions -- including populist
or fascist solutions that forcibly attempt to restore some of the torn-away
national factors at the cost of new stakeholders.

>I'd love a few words distinguishing overproduction from underconsumption.
>I still don't get it, despite Rakesh's noble efforts of yore.

It's overproduction of CAPITAL, that can't be invested at a rate of profit
that's considered good enough. It's not overproduction of goods.
Underconsumption focuses on goods (use values), a ridiculous mythologizing
perspective given the absolute predominance of exchange value in the
motivation and calculations of capitalists.

Of course, at world aggregate level all sorts of disequilibriums surface in
conjunction with the breakdown of credit or a fall in the rate of profit
(even a threatened fall given the measures taken by large capitals to
protect themselves and counter the threat). Including the inability of the
real market to absorb all the goods capable of being churned out by a
frustratingly overdeveloped production system on steroids. These
disequilibriums are secondary, however.

The only real bourgeois solution is the destruction of capital in order to
create a smaller value base to jack up the obtainable rate of profit.
Keynesianism is an indirect destruction of some capital values by taking
them out of the main market (nationalization) and by forcing a social tax
on capital enabling greater aggregate consumption (welfare state), but it
is only a local and temporary solution given the survival of capitalism, ie
imperialism, as the dominant world economic system. And it was conversion
under the threat of the gallows, with world revolution staring the
bourgeoisie in the face. The problem with Keynesianism is that it dampens
current contradictions by stoking up future ones -- all the infrastructure,
home-building, health, education etc creates preconditions for greatly
increased productivity leading to an even more unmanageable overproduction
of capital at a future date.

Of course, given a big enough threat from the working class, and an
incapacity to resort to real bourgeois solutions like war and fascism,
Keynesianism in a modern form would be on the cards again. But it requires
a powerful and treacherous working-class leadership to provide a national
political base for it, and this requires a gullible and undemanding working
class (however this has been achieved, whether by large-scale bribery or by
force). In the present situation coming out of a period of huge drops in
working-class living standards in the imperialist heartlands, the working
class is unlikely to be satisfied with peanuts if it sees itself in a
position to gain real concessions by exerting social pressure. For this it
would need leaders enjoying respect and gratitude. This is not the case
today.


>And is Japan actually capable of playing Roosevelt to a 'reserve army' of
>states that now spans from Islamabad to Taipei?

If it has to, under threat of extinction, yes. But the strain will be
enormous.

Look at the problems even the mighty Germany is having digesting the
ex-GDR. The huge German union IG-Metall just forced through an equal wage
agreement covering the ex-GDR regions of Germany. This will cut into
profits something rotten, stimulating ferocious export behaviour abroad and
ferocious cost-cutting at home, angering export competitors on the one hand
and workers on the other -- and these workers are not crushed, atomized or
disorganized, as they've just won a big concession. The rock and the hard
place are both closing in on the imperialists, and they're gathering speed.

I wouldn't like to be in imperialist shoes.

Cheers,

Hugh




     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---