Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 06:30:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: glevy-AT-acnet.pratt.edu
Subject: Re: Is capitalism "moribund"?


Paul C. wrote:

> Capitalism on a world scale will not be threatened with fundamental
> limits to its development until the industrialisation and
> consequent proletarianisation of the world is complete, and
> until the world's rate of population growth has substantially
> reduced.

I very much disagree with this formulation as it excludes the role of 
class consciousness and self-organization by the working class.  
Capitalism, in my view, will be more threatened globally by the political 
organization of the working class and their realization that they must 
become the "midwife" of a new social order, then entirely economic 
changes within the capitalist mode of production.

Also, the idea that population growth must be lowered for capitalism to 
be "threatened" is, at best, assertive.  More important, from my 
perspective, than the absolute size of population growth (as in Malthus), 
is the growth of the relative surplus population (the industrial reserve 
army, which changes cyclically, rather than increasing absolutely, over 
time).

Paul continues:
 
Once that occurs two important processes will come into operation: > 
> 1. Any accumulation of capital at a faster rate than the residual
>    population growth must result in a rising organic composition of
>    capital tending to push profit rates down.
> 2. Elimination of the latent reserve army will strengthen the
>    bargaining position of the world proletariat, reducing the
>    possibility of raising the rate of surplus value.


Very interesting formulations.  Are they influenced by Otto Bauer?  It 
seems to me that they are and, if so, we could discuss accumulation 
debates from the 1930's -- a thread that I'm sure Rakesh would be very 
interested in  seeing a discussion of. 

Any complex theory in political economy suffers when it is presented in 
very simple terms.  I would ask that you attempt to develop this theory 
further so that we could give more meaningful reactions to it.

Concerning #2 above, Marx held the the process which led to the 
tendencial decline in the general rate of profit also caused the rate of 
surplus value to *rise*.  Also, even with accumulation and absolute 
population decline, it is hard for me to see how this would result in the 
*"elimination"* of the reserve army.

Paul continues:

> I guess that a few weeks hard figuring looking at projections of
> population growth, rates of capital accumulation and of
> proletarianisation should give one an order of magnitude 
> estimate of how long before morbidity sets in.
> 
Again, I strongly disagree.  A few weeks or a few years worth of figuring 
won't help you much here.  First, you have to develop a theory which 
understands the relation between each of the variables listed above (and 
other relevant variables as well). Once you have done the above, it will 
be very difficult (an understatement) to make meaningful estimates for 
long-term changes in these variables.

Jerry


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

     ------------------