Keynesians
see events like the storms as the basis of increasing economic activity.
Things like natural disasters, or better still wars, that physically
destroy large amounts of capital and wealth, mean that it has to be
replaced, people are put to work replacing what has been destroyed,
firms see demand for their products rise as this replacement is
undertaken, and as newly employed workers spend their wages. This
process raises aggregate demand in the economy, and thereby national
income (wages, profits, rents, interest and taxes). Even were this
argument correct, which it isn't, it would demonstrate only what a
ridiculous system Capitalism is that destruction is seen as
beneficial!

If a storm
comes along and destroys his stock-pen, would Robinson see this as
something fortuitous, because it gives him the opportunity to engage
in work he otherwise would not have needed to undertake? Of course,
not! In fact, the time he now needs to spend simply rebuilding his
stock-pen, rounding up the escaped animals etc., may require him to
use all of his surplus labour-time just for that purpose, rather than
be able to use it, for his enjoyment or to expand his productive
capacity. In other words, rather than increasing his wages
(consumption) or his profits (his surplus labour-time) not only may
he find that his profits – and therefore rate of profit – sinks
to zero, but the time he has to spend simply replacing his means of
production, might even eat into the time he would previously have set
aside to meet his consumption needs!
As Marx
points out, these underlying value relations, determined by the Law
of Value, do not change just because the mode of production changes,
only the form of their manifestation changes. These underlying value
relations, for example, explain why such tragedies severely affect
those economies that already have little in the way of capital
compared to those which have huge amounts of it. As Marx makes
clear, it is not the physical destruction of capital, which is
beneficial, and raises the rate of profit, as the Keynesians believe,
but the destruction of capital-value. In other words, for the rate
of profit to rise, and the potential for accumulation, thereby to
rise, the physical capital must continue to exist – it is after all
needed to produce the commodities, in which the surplus value is
embodied – but its value must be reduced by the process of “moral
depreciation”, or by simply being written down, as one
capitalist goes bust, and their business is taken over by another.
No comments:
Post a Comment