Reform or revolution

["Barry Brooks" <durable@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

There is general agreement that various problems of capitalism are permanent 
features across a broad range of political type from Marxists to republicans.  
One generally accepted problem of capitalism is its trouble producing as much 
as possible because of its tendency to have a low level of effective demand.   
It seems that reforms which are acceptable to our gang of leaders will not 
solve this problem.

While holding their noses, the plutocrats in control have adopted Keynesian 
policies to raise demand sufficiently to provide a compromise between their 
desire to dominate labor with the reserve army of the unemployed and their 
desire to increase production.   Their version of limited Keynesian policy has 
served capitalists well.  It has provided enough income for enough workers to 
quell the cries for revolution without imposing any threat to the wealth of the 
super-rich.   

The republicans benefit from capitalism and are against revolution, much 
preferring reform, on their own terms.   Reform under republican control is 
seen as a bad thing by Marxists, because it will never provide workers with 
security or ever be allow to raise demand and income to the level where workers 
become too expensive, capable of accumulation, or worse yet independent and 
uncontrollable.  In order to dominate labor it is believed that plutocratic 
policy has to perpetuate a level of poverty and insecurity among the masses 
which will surely breed discontent and thus require propaganda and repression.

Naturally, Marxists want to get on with the revolution to replace capitalism. 
It's clear that while the system is under the control of the present uninformed 
gangs they will not tolerate the election and control by reformers who want to 
provide real security for the masses.  Media control makes election of such 
types unlikely, and when they do get into office extraordinary measures have 
been taken to remove them.  

Although this points to the necessity of revolution to achieve a really good 
life for the masses, for those on the fence, our partially reformed system and 
its evils seem to be preferable to revolution, which is believed to necessarily 
entail violence and injustice. Their cynical view is that revolution will only 
to lead to a different gang of rulers.

There is no technical economic reason why capitalism can't grow faster, provide 
security for the masses, and even become sustainable.   Perhaps, if it weren't 
for the incompetence and fear of the plutocrats reform could reach the level of 
revolution and still leave the rich just as rich as they were before.  Clever 
as they are it seems they are not that clever.  Unfortunately, it is an article 
of faith among the rich that fundamental scarcity requires the existence of 
poverty to maintain the rich in their luxury.  This has helped prevent any 
efforts by the plutocrats to out-revolution the revolutionaries by means of 
open-ended reform.  False theories make good decisions unlikely.

Why should they yield, or take a chance of greater reforms, so long as they 
believe its impossible to have reform without losing their privilege as the 
wealthy few.   Even those plutocrats who can conceive of acceptable methods of 
effective reform have little motivation to press their plans forward because 
the specter of revolution has already been reduced sufficiently by reform and 
propaganda, for the present.

This is the impasse that Marxists are up against today, but as the situation is 
unfolding it appears that capitalism is facing limits to the effectiveness of 
limited reform and propaganda.  The problem of maintaining the desired level of 
demand is growing more difficult for capitalism due to two growing and closely 
related trends, rising productivity  requiring growth in resource consumption 
and the the need to stop the waste of resources requiring a shrinking level of 
resource consumption .

As part of the process of maximizing profit capitalism has used technology to 
increase productivity, thus reducing their wage costs.  As worker output has 
increased, growth in consumption has been able to consume that additional 
output.  Economic growth has been the basis of limited reform, but the limits 
to growth are going to make that solution unworkable rather soon.  Not if but 
when growth can't keep consumption high enough to allow highly productive 
workers busy the Keynesian reforms will fall short of quelling unrest among the 
masses.

Also, when insecurity and poverty rise too high propaganda will not stop 
unrest, although it may prevent effective opposition.  People know when they 
don't have enough.   The crisis of capitalism is caused by the many limits to 
growth, and to only reforms capable of addressing this situation are 
revolutionary.   The plutocrats will be forced, by circumstances no one can 
control rather than an uprising of the masses, to adopt revolutionary reforms.

If the plutocrats choose to end wage dependence to allow economic security and 
conservation in an automated economy without any need for growth in consumption 
the dominance of workers through fear of unemployment will end.  It's not clear 
that the present gang of guardians would loose their control if they allowed 
the masses to have economic security, because the power of propaganda would 
seem sufficient.   If so we might expect to see adoption of revolutionary 
reform by those who have historically resisted significant changes, not due to 
any demands, but due to self-preservation once events make the denial of the 
limits to growth un-denialable.  Of course, if they choose near-revolutionary 
reform it would stop short of taking their monopoly ownership away, thus 
exposing any reforms to reaction. Only the backward opinions of the plutocrats 
are stopping them from ending the wage dependence of the masses as a means of 
protecting their prerogatives.  If they continue in their denial of the crisis 
of productivity and growth we will all face much greater poverty and 
insecurity.  In that situation civil order will require a police state.  A 
policy of foolishly induced poverty and total oppression make-up the most 
advanced plan the plutocrats seem to have.

This failure of reform will finally breathe new life into the desire for some 
kind of revolution, even among fearful and poor republicans.  

Barry