The standard and accepted view of capitalisms fatal flaw  is over
production (perhaps more accurately called under consumption due
to profits being taken out of workers pay).  It is all to clear that
this is accurate; in the prime case the great depression, the over
production hit virtually everything, except the hype from gov't and
the very rich.  Even food, as is well known was over-produced while
millions were in semi-starvation.

A closely related factor is the tremendous amount of money which
goes int 'management' to keep the workers working that extra half
time for the owners.  And in addition there is the money (1/2 trillion
per year) which goes into sales and everything related to it in order
to try to push the over produced goods.

To have an example: GM , typical of corps., consider the revenue (found
after deducting costs of materials); and consider workers wages.  Wages
come to 1/2 of the revenue.  The remainder goes into profit and mangement
(and used to be some part in taxes--though mostly shifted to workers
by now).  Thus the workers can only purchase half of the cars they
produce OVER PRODUCTION.
WCM

>
> Bill,
> It's the skewed distribution, more than a supposed under-production,
> that is the fundamental problem of capitalism that you are talking
> about.     But I think that the nature of what is being produced, is
> just as significant a problem of capitalism as the production or
> distribution.
>
> Classical Marxists have tended to shy away from mentioning the
> tremendous quantity of garbage and harmful products that capitalism
> produces.       We are at sea in a cesspool of garbage while
> living in our capitalist society.     That's what I mean by
> artificial squalor.
>
> No doubt that the pro-capitalist Tresies of America will enter in at
> this point, with their ......What about the great consumer and other
> products that Yugoslavia, Russia, and China are known for?
> Weren't they far worse?
>
> As a matter of fact, the industrial production of these societies may
> have been less destructive to the environment, and of an OVERALL better
> quality, than what was coming out of the First/ Third Worlds of that
> period.     We can certainly say that the distribution of finished
> (non-military) product was less skewed.
>
> Tresy would have us believe that capitalism now can run the ex-Soviet
> Bloc countries without Chernobyl, Lake Baikal, etc.     What we
> really fear, is the absolute certainty that capitalism will now take a
> bad situation and make it far worse, as it pillages wood products, oil,
> and other resources from the region.
>
> It wasn't Russia that churns out 40% of the world's garbage daily. Or
> was responsible for depeleting atmoshere and biodiversity.     Or
> was behind Bhopal or the 2 World Wars.     Or that has oversold ATB
> use as the focal strategy against disease.
>
> Tony
> .........................................................
> Bill bartlett
> Bracknell tas.
> Date:    Wed, Feb 16, 2000
>
> Tony Abdo wrote:
> [...]
>
> "Artificial" also refers to more than economy running at below full
> capacity.   There is also the small matter of what is being produced.
> Under capitalism, -the what- causes more squalor than -the how much-.
>
> You have a point, but the point I was discussing is more fundamental. It
> is conceivable that capitalism could adapt to producing different
> things, but it is clear that producing enough of everything to satisfy
> all material human needs is incompatible with the capitalist system.
>
> Bill bartlett
> Bracknell tas.
>