Re: [Marxism] Meanwhile..."Sharp Drop in Jobs Adds to Grim Picture of U.S. Economy" (NYT)

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

"gary.maclennan@xxxxxxxxx" wrote:
> 
> Being a total economic illiterate and not ever having succeeded in getting
> thru Capital, I hesitate to reply here especially to people like Charles and
> Carroll who know what they are talking about. But fools rush in etc.
> 
> Didn't Sweezey's work argue that captialism tends towards stagnation and not
> the regeneration of the cycle? In political terms the problem of being
> committed to the cycle is that necessarily one is thereby committed to the
> post cycle.  For instance my accountant is already talking about the
> post-recession period to come.

Of course. That's what slumps are for, to create a post-slump or new
cycle of growth.

Sweezy did argue that, but he added a proviso something like "in the
absence of epoch-creating inventions," but that should be read to also
include epoch-creating episodes of destruction (like WW2), which destroy
so much capital that growth is again possible.

Capitalism can't not grow; if it dies from stagnation, nothing replaces
it except some version of Luxemburg's barbarianism.

Carrol


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism