[Marxism] Eight Theses on the Economic Crisis

Waistline2 at aol.com Waistline2 at aol.com
Tue Mar 3 15:13:36 MST 2009


I am not scared, having read the "Eight Theses." The theoretical problem  for 
me was "displacement."  I know what the word means and its context  which 
roughly = "return to profitability." 
 
Here's the problem: each cycle of return to profitability is done on the  
basis of sinking another layer of the proletariat lower and lower. Here is where  
I get pissed and lose it. Now the temporary workforces hovers between 30 and 
40  million and the crisis has not been "displaced" at all, but placed, 
shifted onto  the backs of the proletariat as is the case in every breach in 
circulation. Then  there is always the open and hidden destruction of productive 
forces or "over  capacity." 
 
So as I regain my posture and quiet the little gray matter that is still  
preserved, I think about the fact that two people have to work today to realize  
the economic standard of living I attained working in the plants as a  young 
man in the 1970's. Why is that? Here displacement means increase in the  
density of dead labor, revolutionizing the machinery of society and the  cheapening 
of all commodities including the commodity labor, brought and sold as  labor 
power. 
 
"But Mr. communists that is the big picture and should not be used to  
describe this crisis?" 
 
"What! Big picture  . . . if events accelerate any faster 50% of the  country 
will be out of work before the year is over." 
 
Now I'm pissed again because overaccumulation of capital does not mean "to  
much" but rather capital fleeing from low to high areas of return. In the 80  
year language of Marxism "seeking maximum profit." It is the seeking of maximum 
 profit that is the impulse for the emergence and creation of the new  
non-banking international financial infrastructure. This structure does not  come 
into existence as just a "good idea" or a preferred policy of capital  but is a 
natural outgrown of the revolution in the mode of production . . .  . 
directly. 
 
The unified force theory of Marxism was already stated as residing in the  
mode of production; the progress of industry which Marx writes about from a  
thousand and one directions; the conflict between productive forces and social  
relations. 
 
How does this unified theory explains crisis, this crisis? 
 
Wrong Question! 
 
The question is "how is this crisis to be explained in the context of the  
unified theory!" 
 
Now I am pissed again . . . not at this thread but all this social  
democratic crap in the ideological sphere. Real social democracy would not be  trying 
to save a bunch of damn assets, but rather would seek price controls and  
raising wages, as the way to stabilize the bottom, rather than see the bottom in  
temporal crap like housing. 
 
I am so pissed and could bite a brick in half. 
 
Raise the consuming capacity of the masses? Great . . . then raise it.  Raise 
wages. Establish the bottom Mr. Social Democrat! 
 
Nationalize Banks . . .? OK, I get mad again. 
 
Those are not banks but decidedly non-banking institutions! 
 
Want to know what a bank is. Look on the window outside and if it has an  
FDIC sticker on it is a bank. 
 
Sorry, I am not in a good mood. 
 
The bourgeoisie messed up my lemonade, with those thick skinned lemons. You  
have to squeeze a thousand of them to get a good pitcher of lemonade. 
 
WL. 


In a message dated 3/3/2009 4:44:20 P.M. Eastern Standard  Time, 
sartesian at earthlink.net writes:

Can I link all these facets to one  "unified force theory of the capitalist 
universe"?   Geez, I don't  know.  I can't even find out how much cash IBM 
has socked away in  Europe and Asia.

Michaels L &P,  D OC, Matt Russo, John, Imani,  Waistline, Paul Flewers, 
Steve Palmer,  Shane, Jim Farmelant.. anybody  care to take a crack at this?
 
**************Need a job? Find employment help in your area. 
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000005)




More information about the Marxism mailing list