Michael P. wrote: >>>Jim, don't underestimate the importance of fossil
fuels. Without fossil fuelsthere would be virtually no surplus value;
thus, no capitalism.<<<
saith I: >> why?<<
Michael replies: >Because given the limits of technology today, without
fossil fuel, we would be unable to produce a surplus over and above the
subsistence needs of workers<
Not even if the intensity of labor is increased? not even if the
effectiveness of using such fuels increases? The mainstream media talk
about how the U.S. economy is more energy-efficient than it was 25 years
ago. I'm sure there's a lot of hype there, but there also seems to be some
truth, too. After all, U.S. cars get more miles per gallon of gasoline than
they used to...
-------------------------------------
In a separate message, I wrote: >> Though Luxemburg argued that capitalism
would collapse if it didn't continue _extensive_ expansion, I don't find
her argument convincing. ... 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?<<
Charles writes: >I don't think "the" idea is that capitalism never has
periods when it retains its rate of expansion of terrritory, that it must
be uniform and continuous territorial expansion, that it won't be in ebbs
and flows. Thereby, looking at capitalism's whole history there is evidence
that expansion must always be returned to, even with ebbs. This evidence is
empircal evidence supporting the claim that capitalism must expand
geographically.
>The theoretical match for these facts hmmmmmmmm, lets see.
>We might start by looking more deeply into Marx and Engels reference to
the fact that capitalism constantly seeks new markets.
>I would say that it goes back to the competition pressure from other
capitalists. Some capitalists, to get new markets WILL expand their
territory ( use their states to control countries, force markets to be
open, force free trade on the world) because there is no force in the world
saying they can't. ( They are the masters of the universe anyway). The
other capitalists must follow suit once any capitalists do this, or else
face ruin, takeover, extinction.<
I agree: capitalist competition (a much more violent and aggressive process
than textbooks talk about) encourage each capital to expand like crazy
(grow or die, of GOD, as former pen-l pal Blair Sandler calls it). The
competition encourages businesses to seek low wages and materials costs,
new markets, etc. This is a very strong dynamic force, based in the
structural antagonisms which are inherent in capitalism. Further, the
structural antagonism of class relations encourage expansion: businesses
seek low-wage areas to undercut organized labor, among other things.
However, does GOD apply to capitalism as a whole? I'd say yes, but does it
have to be _extensive_, geographical? can't it also be technological?
Ian writes: >Geographic space is only one type of space. Imagine buying and
selling data structures in cyberspace as a form of real estate
transactions. In it's own way, cyberspace has the potential to become as
large as astronomical space. So spatial considerations are irrelevant with
regards to collapse. The relationships between energy, information and
knowledge are pivotal in the
coming century. Post oil possibilities within capitalism are enormous if
capitalists and governments INVEST in them; just watch how the linkages
between physics and computer science and electronic engineering grow
stronger. We're at the tip of an iceberg with this stuff! As the current
intellectual property rights disputes wage on, it's a battle for who will
own the knowledge. It's the path dependency of the land grab mentality
inherited over the last 500 years that's' screwin' us up too. Michael's
work as well as others critiquing the current diseased paradigm is very
very important and as I hinted at earlier can lead to different notions of
subjectivity as well. Imagine a webhead from silicon valley talking to
someone from say, Boonville, Indiana or Rwanda; almost totally different
worlds.<
this suggests that geographical expansion can be replaced. After all,
technical "progress" can cheapen raw materials, undermine labor, create new
markets, etc. Increased Taylorization of production seems the way to go...
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
