* From: paul phillips Charles, I used the words "have to" in the context of the necessary requirement to return the rate of profit to its previous levels. What I am saying is not the reverse of what you are saying, but rather, the same. In the light of increased real input costs (energy, raw materials), capital strove to reduce its real labour costs and at the same time curtail inflation to protect financial capital. Monetarism served to meet both goals by raising unemployment, lowering real wages and suppressing demand.
Paul P ^^^^ CB: OK . I think I follow. The "have to" is the necessity from the standpoint of capital and the capitalists. And the necessity of capital is the same as the "necessity" of labor , but the exact reverse ? Sort of an inverse correlation ? ^^^^^ Charles Brown wrote: >CB: Thanks for your responses, Paul > >Just playing Marx's adovocate: Did the rise in resource rents to primary >producers "have" to be subtracted from labour and redirected to capital via >a "required decline in real wages..etc. "? This all sounds like the reverse >of "my" interpretation of the PC ( which obviously could be wrong). They >"had" to lower wages and raise unemployment. >If we ran the zoo, why not keep wages up and profits down ? > > >^^^^^^ >
