Paul Phillips wrote:
>What of this as an argument.
>a. Capitalism, as a system, requires constant expansion -- "Accumulate,
>Accumulate, that is Moses and the Prophets" -- but
>this accumulation requires expansion of the system geographically
>particularly as overaccumulation takes place in the centre --
>therefore, globalism.
Even though (in context) the quotation from Marx actually refers to his
description of capitalist ethics (which he saw as being broken), it sure
does describe capitalism's dynamic.
Though Luxemburg argued that capitalism would collapse if it didn't
continue _extensive_ expansion, I don't find her argument convincing.
(However, such extensive expansion does continue in practice.) That's
because I don't see why capitalism can't have _intensive_ expansion. After
all, when the "frontier" closed more than 100 years ago in the U.S. (i.e.,
when all the lands had been stolen from the Indians), the U.S. economy was
able to make up for it with increased labor productivity (relative
surplus-value extraction), largely based on technological change and
mechanization. (Of course, as Yoshie notes, it also helped to be the
biggest bruiser on the block, allowing the U.S. to dump costs on the less
powerful countries.)
Does someone have a convincing argument that capitalism will collapse if it
doesn't expand geographically?
>b. Expansion of the system (globalization of capitalism) requires
>increased trade and the movement of goods -- Canada, for
>instance, is approaching 40% of its GDP in Exports. All these exports
>require transportation. (Huge growth here particularly in
>long-distance truck transport.) All transportation at the moment requires
>fossile fuels.
right, at the moment.
>c. Therefore, the capitalist system (at least as it currently operates)
>is dependent on fossil fuels. But, unless it can come up
>with an alternative fuel, it can not continue to increase its geographic
>scope and thus can not continue as a system.
_At the moment_, all transportation requires fossil fuels. Exactly. I'm no
Nordhausian optimist, but I think that even if true scarcity-of-energy
crises occur in the future, they don't automatically imply capitalism's
demise. Crises represent opportunities for mass movements to push for
progressive change rather than automatically causing the system to
collapse. In the meantime, new power sources can be promoted while old ones
can be economized on (say, by relying more on local trade and less on
international trade, or by introducing energy-saving technology), so that
if the chance to revolutionize capitalism is missed, capitalism can
continue, even with very high fossil-fuel prices. And, as I said before,
intensifying labor and cutting wages can help capitalism continue.
In fact, we may see the irony of progressive movements that do stuff like
pushing for solar power use helping to save capitalism's bacon. (It's an
irony I'll have to live with, since I favor solar power.)
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
