From: Paul Cockshott (paul@cockshott.com)
Date: Fri Jan 24 2003 - 16:07:07 EST
rakeshb@stanford.edu wrote: > Quoting clyder@gn.apc.org: > > > This is an econmistic response. > > Why? > > It is predicated on the > > continued existence of capitalism. What I am pointing out is that > > a contradiction between private sector unproductive workers > > and other workers is likely to come about when a socialist > > government sets about abolishing the financial sector. > > Why? Wouldn't the freeing up of this labor time of unproductive > workers create the opportunity for the reduction of the daily labor > time required of both these formerly unproductive workers and > productive workers? > This is of course true in the long run, just as in the long run the displacement of the peasantry into an urban proletariat raises productivity. This does not prevent those being displaced from their present position opposing such displacement. > > Moreover, since the basis for the automation of industrial labor > would be greatly expanded in a socialist society as capital is > dissuaded from labor saving innovation to the extent it only has to > pay for labor power, not the full labor time of direct labor,shouldn't > productive workers...by your logic...be in the vanguard against > socialism? After all, aren't they the most likely to be automated out > of a job? > This is a long term effect, and unlikely to be seen as threatening. The closing down of Wall Street would have a somewhat shorter timescale. > > Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 26 2003 - 00:00:01 EST