Sandwichman wrote: >... I would see the > growth-as-policy-imperative to have been in large part a defensive measure > by capital to the long-term threat that progressively reduced hours of work > posed to the continued social domination by capital.
when, in recent memory, was capital's hegemony threatened? even ignoring the fact that many with jobs have faced increased hours (when we include domestic labor in the mix), aren't there other dimensions to the social process besides reduced work-hours that potentially can threaten capital's social domination? Haven't the effects reduced work hours been counteracted (for capital's benefit) by increased labor productivity per hour, stagnant real wages, and capital mobility? > In the pre-Great > Depression past, it was conceivable to work out the contradictions of > capital accumulation through periodic crises. But after the Depression and > the war that option became not so attractive. It is only in those > circumstances that systematic and recurrent state intervention to foster > relatively uninterrupted growth became politically tolerable to capital. why have crises become popular again in 2008-9?? or were they popular in the early 1980s in the US (when Volcker imposed an anti-inflation recession) or the early 1980s (ditto for Greenspan)? What about 2001? -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
