OPE-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]
Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.

Re: (OPE-L) Re: Historical Explanation and Systematic Dialectics

You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it. 

Jerry,
I think it would be better if you chose select points and made them succinctly.

Brenner himself says the proximate cause of the long downturn was a
fall in the rate of profit; the question is how he explains it. You
don't show that the intra capitalist conflict could have by itself
caused a fall in the rate of profit the long downturn. Nor do you
show that any of your other factors can account for it.  Moreover, as
I have argued many times, Mattick  never argued that capitalism
suffers from only one contradiction as manifested in the falling rate
of profit--there could be and are crises from other economic causes
(underconsumption and other kinds of disproportionality) and
political causes. The theory of the falling rate of profit was meant
as an  explanation of a protracted global slump which itself gives
rise to political conflicts,

Hello Rakesh.

 No, the argument is that competition tends to become fraticidal and
 crises protracted rather than solveable through a simple
 redistribution of capital only when accumulation has come to founder
 on a shortage of surplus value in the abode of production though said
 shortage manifests itself as a surplus of commodities in the realm of
 circulation (Mattick, 1969, 1981). Inter-class competition (sic:
 should it not read intra class competition?) cannot in itself explain
 a a protracted downturn in which competition has become fraticidal.


When examining the causes for a world economic crisis, we have to
grasp the world market "in which production is posited as a totality
together with all movements, but within which, at the same time, all
contradictions come into play." (Marx, _Grundrisse_, Penguin, p. 227).
This means, among other things, that we must grasp capital and the
(nation-) state as diversity on the international level.  This requires
that we grasp foreign trade and, furthermore, ALL of the contradictions.
To grasp ALL of the contradictions related to a specific historical
event requires that we also grasp all of the relevant _contingent_
contradictions.  To take an abstract tendency, such as the LTRPF,
and assert that it _must_ be the cause of a _particular_ economic
crisis is exactly the sort of  [reductionist] problem that Tony warned
against.


No one is saying that falling profit rate is the cause of all
particular crises.



 One can not assume in examining a particular historical crisis
that class conflict between capital and wage-labour is -- 'ultimately' or
otherwise -- the cause.



Sure.


You assert that it has been 'demonstrated' that a 'prolonged' economic
crisis can not be caused by (contradictions associated with) capitalist
competition.



I am also saying that Brenner recognizes as much. He too ultimately
points to a rise in the real wage, though as Shaikh notes there is no
quantitative proof that there was a rise in the real wage that could
account for the magnitude of the fall in the profit rate.


 By inference, you are suggesting that any factor which is
not a direct expression of the class struggle between wage-labour and
capital can not be the primary causal force behind a 'protracted'
economic downturn.


Yes general crises require not a simple redistribution of capital but
the devaluation of capital as such and a rise in the rate of
exploitation of the working class as a whole. Classical economics
denied that a general crisis could be caused by contradictions within
the abode of production itself.




In what follows, I will present a number of causes of a potential
world-wide economic crises which are hypothetical in nature. All
of the examples have in common the positing of a _primary_ causal
force for a crisis which is _not_ class struggle between capital and
wage-labor.   The intent is to show by example that what you have
asserted to have 'demonstrated' is erroneous.  While these
examples are hypothetical, they are none the less expressions of real
material, social processes that could _in fact_ trigger a capitalist crisis.

1.  Capitalist Competition: Cartelization

The oil industry was once ruled by an international cartel and, if
conditions change, a cartel could re-assert itself as a global
economic force.  If there is 'cartel solidarity' and unity in action,
then the cartel could multiply the price of crude oil by several-
fold.


So you disagree with Cyrus' arguments against cartelization?



 This would then dramatically increase the costs of production
for all firms since the rising price of oil would increase the cost
of all oil derivatives (such as plastics and fiberglass) which can
be both final output and/or elements of constant circulating capital.
As the costs of production go up, firms could increase prices and
inflation would likely result.  Yet, there is no mechanism  to assure
that consumers will now be able to afford to pay higher prices.
Say's Law does not hold.  This could set in motion a series of
events that would result in a prolonged world-wide economic crisis
-- even though one section of the world capitalist economy (in
nation-states where the cartel is based) could prosper.



It can demonstrated that a rise in the price of oil was not the cause
of the mid 70s downturn. In the second slump Mandel did argue against
this essentially Ricardian theory of general crisis.



2. Boycotts and Trade Sanctions

a) A consumer boycott of French and E.U. commodities in the
US is launched -- with or without the support of the US
government.  If the movement -- which would be an expression
of nationalism rather than class conflict -- is largely successful,
it can be expected that citizen-consumers in other nations will
likely boycott commodities produced in the US.  As this
process continues, one can easily envision a protracted world-wide
economic crisis.



Again beggar thy neighbor policies may well compound a global crisis.
But the breakdown in cooperation itself has material causes.


b) The US government decides to levy a special tax on
imported goods to help pay for US military interventions which,
it claims, benefit the rest of the world.  Even though this would
be a violation of international law, that has not stopped the
US government before on numerous occasions. Other
countries might respond by levying tariffs on commodities produced
in the US.  Of course, the US government would have anticipated
retaliation when they levied the tariff but they might  have believed
-- on balance -- that they might gain more than they would lose.
Events could demonstrate that they miscalculated.  Again, this
competition among capitalists and  nation-states could result in a
prolonged period of economic crisis.



Sure this could happen but such destructive competition is more
likely to obtain in the conditions of a global slump rather than
itself being the cause of it.



3.  War

It's true that there have been historical examples of war among
capitalist nations promoting the accumulation of capital and growth.
One could, however, envision circumstances in which wars could
trigger a prolonged economic crisis.  E.g.

-- A nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan; or
-- A nuclear exchange between N. Korea and the USA; or
-- A nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran; or
-- The US uses WMD when invading a country in Latin
     America.

While it may be the case that class conflict was the underlying
factor that led to these wars, it could be the case that it was not.
Nationalism, after all, is a very strong force in the world and
nationalism can lead to actions which could be viewed as
'irrational' and undesirable from the perspective of  _world_
capitalist class interests.

One could expect de-accumulation as a consequence as the
'investment climate' and stability  in  international markets would
likely be severely undermined.  I.e. having observed these events,
capitalists might likely anticipate further conflict and instability
and withhold funds for accumulation in the presence of heightened
international uncertainty.


These were not the causes of the long downturn that Brenner is trying
to explain.




4.  Religious Fundamentalism

One could envision a coalition of many different nations which
are united by Islamic fundamentalism which could decide not to
sell or buy any commodities from 'the West'.  This would close
off entire sections of the world from imperialist investment.
While it could be expected to lower the standard of living in the
nations imposing the boycott, it could nonetheless be done and
perhaps in some regions (if popular perceptions change) be
popular.  Yet, it would also likely push the world capitalist
economy into a prolonged economic crisis.



Nor was this.



5.  Other Contingencies

A new plague -- whether manufactured in the laboratory or naturally
occurring -- could spread out of control throughout the world.  Even
if nations closed off borders (which itself would severely impact
world trade) it might not be stopped.  Of course, this might have
nothing to do with the LTRPF (or its counteracting factors) or
class struggle between capital and wage-labour but it could
nevertheless trigger a prolonged economic crisis.


Perhaps the destruction of public health could have something to do
with the LTRPF>




I have thus demonstrated that any 'demonstration' which alleges
to show that only the class struggle can be the primary cause of
a particular economic crisis is manifestly false.



Please, Jerry, if you are going to invent strawman, invent new names
for them. Don't use my name.


  Any specific
economic crisis must be analyzed concretely and all of the
relevant contradictions and causal factors must be examined
to ultimately locate primary cause.  We can not _a prior_ know
what that primary cause is for a specific crisis based on abstract
theory and assertions of theoretical primacy that are derived from
that abstract theory. 

 I immediately made this argument on LBO-talk in response to Brenner's
 NLR book upon its publication. Werner Bonefeld made a similar
 argument.


Yes, Bonefeld comes from a tradition which privileges class struggle
to the exclusion of other causal factors.


The point remains that class relations though manifested in things
and prices are not just another causal factor.





 The inability of intra capitalist competition in itself to
 explain a protracted downturn has been demonstrated by several of
 Brenner's critics. Ultimately Brenner explains a depression in the
 profit rate as a result of a rise in the real wage, though he insists
 that the real wage does not rise as a result of working class
 militance. That is, Brenner himself does not ultimately explain the
 long downturn as a result of simply intra capitalist competition; he
 too turns to a change in the real relationship between capital and
 wage labor in the division of net product.


If Brenner 'ultimately' grounds the current economic downturn in
the  struggle between capital and labour then all of the efforts by
Brenner's critics to 'demonstrate'  that competition can not 'in itself'
cause  a protracted downturn were misplaced.


How does this follow?



  A classic 'straw
man' type argument by the critics of Brenner.


What are you saying here? Why don't you spend time actually
developing your criticism of what I wrote rather than attacking
strawmen?



In solidarity, Jerry

[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]