Re: [Pen-l] De-Growth Conference Declaration

[Jim Devine <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx>]

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
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l