>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/17/00 02:55PM >>> >>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?
((((((((((((((
CB: First, intensification of production due to technological improvement that
increases the productive power of labor reduces the rate of surplus value ( or profit
?) , doesn't it ? Isn't this part of the logic of the tendency of the rate of profit
to fall due to the increase in organic composition of capital ?
But perhaps the more complete answer is : assume the intensification you describe.
Soon all capitalists will so intensify. Then , with all the potential proletarians
over in some other country or geographical area, some one of the capitalists is going
to break out and try to get the lead among all the intensified capitalists by
combining intensification with extensification ( geographically). The only limit on
extensification is the globe.
The New Economy is largely the reextensification of world capitalism into geographical
areas that had been foreclosed to it by socialism and to some extent formerly
non-aligned countries which had some barriers to entry to capital based on their
relationships with and the promise of the European socialist system.
Because the bourgeoisie constantly revolutionize the instruments of production, it
seems to me your intensification scenario has in fact been continuously part of the
history of actual capitalism. In other words, we don't have to think of what you pose
as hypothetical , do we ?
