On Sun, 27 Feb 1994 13:36:27 -0500 (EST) Doug Henwood said:
>Yes I'd be interested in seeing cites on this. I'd prefer a formulation
>more like bloodsucking leeches, or in Marx's own phrase, fabulous
>parasites, rather than a progressive force.
>
>Does that mean that KM agrees with Michael Jensen and other apologists for
>the 1980s, who argue that the buyout boom etc. was a great spur to
>productivity, rather than a hindrance to real investment?
>
>On Sat, 26 Feb 1994, Michael Perelman wrote:
>
>> One addendum on usury: Marx saw that, even thought it was just M-M', usury
>> could be progressive since it forced producers to increase their surplus.
>> I can dig up citations if anyone is interested.
Maybe it depends on the situation faced by capitals. In a situation
such as the 1960s, with booming demand, etc., a debt-load might
push business to expand, improve production, etc. On the other hand,
in a relatively stagnant period like the late 1980s and early
1990s, a debt load pushes capital toward absolute surplus-value
extraction, i.e., speed-up, stretch-out, punitive downsizing, etc.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine BITNET: jndf@lmuacad INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (off); 310/202-6546 (hm); FAX: 310/338-1950
