> Well, that would appear to explain the failure of automation to increase
> unemployment. But it does strike me as rather tautological to argue that "under
> capitalism we could never arrive at the "reductio ad absurdum" where everyone
> is put out of work" because it is in the nature of capitalism to employ
> people, whether producers or superfluous. Anyway, while a new system may be
> emerging dialectically (thru a clash of diametrically-opposed views), it is
> probably not something we would want to label "capitalism".
>
Profit is only made out of the employee part of the equasion;
the theory of the "tendency of profit to fall" is due to the
that fact that the ratio of the "non-employee" capital investment
is growing. It is not views but processes that are diametrically and
un-balancably (oops) opposed. Any new system that is based on
this production mechanism of private ownership of production,
marketvalued human effort and profit, is capitalism.
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
