Re: capitalism's expansion vs. limits

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 23/06/01 15:53 -0700, you wrote:
> Chris B writes:
> > I do not know if Jim is saying that Marx explicitly argued in Volume III
> > that the rising organic composition of capital led to an automatic (and
> > permanent) break down. A reference would be important if Jim is saying
> > Marx really did this, as opposed to arguing extensively from one side of
> > a dialectical analysis which must be placed in the context of all of his
> > writings.
>
> as far as I know, Marx never said that the rising composition led to
> breakdown (automatic collapse). However, many attribute this to him. In
> any event, it's not even a very good theory of (more limited) crisis, IMHO.

Thanks for clear response. Certainly I do not get the impression that many
would-be marxists emphasise rising organic composition as the immediate
cause of any specific crisis, either one pending, or one that has just
occurred.

However, perhaps the effect is so secular. long term, in its effect, that
within individual countries the high organic composition of capital means
that there is always some sector of capital that is being destroyed.
Technical competition for relative surplus value has now to be so
relentless that its effect is part of how the system functions. This would
have an effect of smoothing out the crises in individual advanced
capitalist countries. Instead the crises are occuring on a global scale,
and it is the aspiring large modernising economies, lying in the near
periphery to the metropolitan core of global capitalism, but not actually
part of that core, that take the shock waves: east Asia in 97, then
countries like Mexico, Turkey. Now Argentia and Brazil may be on the brink.

All the major crises will be on a global scale, although *apparently* the
problem of individual second or third division countries.

Note the vulnerable group of countries at the end of the article which Ian
Murray posted on PEN-L and I posted on LBO-talk:

> Even Asia would not be immune to a Latin American crisis. Hong Kong's peg
> would survive a collapse of Argentina's, but Malaysia's would not. That
> would topple the government of Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad,
> plunging Southeast Asia into further turmoil.

Now maybe you think I am stretching the argument from the rising organic
composition of capital to this, but bear in mind that international wage
rates now range over a thirty fold. That is a great change from Marx's day,
and reflects the fact not that workers are not one thirtieth as intelligent
in the poorest countries but they are selling their labour power in a local
market in which its value is very cheap because there is a relatively low
organic composition of capital. That is why it is better for a teacher in
such a country to smuggle himself into New York or London and become a taxi
driver.

My hypothesis therefore is that the rising organic composition of capital
has made the most advanced capitalist economies relatively immune to sudden
crises, the crises are occuring on a truly world scale, with the medium
sized aspiring capitalist countries being the proxies for the whole
capitalist system and taking the massive earthquakes which are needed to
adjust the system.

This does not put limits itself on the global capitalist system as such ,
but it means that in the struggle to understand what is going on,
ideologies such as islam are on the rise, and prompt a global political
response from the hegemons.

(I am really talking about third division aspiring  powers here some of
whom provide a base for the international terrorism that is the overt
argument for a missile defence shield.  Yes I know that there are not many
muslims in Brazil, but Indonesia is the largest muslim state and
another  economic shock wave through there could lead to the expulsion and
slaughter of christians on half the islands. The US would be helpless to
stop this militarily, and even Bush would have to join in political
dialogue about managing the world economy.)

The limits to capitalism's expansion have to be the ability of working
people to understand that it is a complex social system which cannot be
allowed to operate blindly and cannot be privately owned.

Chris Burford

London