combating misrepresentation

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

Rakesh Bhandari wrote:>>... the question is how are crises overcome? jim's
theory leads to one conclusion--raising consumption and/or prices should
work to restore a crisis of overaccumulation as jim d defines it ...<<

This is a misrepresentation of my viewpoint. It would be like saying that
Fred Moseley advocates higher unemployment and wage cuts as a way of solving
the current crisis. Both assertions are wrong.

Rather, as I said, I believe that crisis tendencies are inherent in
capitalism, so that to abolish them it is necessary to replace it with
another mode of production (though that mode may have its own crises, as the
old USSR did).

In the case of over-accumulation relative to consumer demand (one topic of
my 1994 RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY article and the specific form of my
crisis theory being criticized by Bhandari), raising consumption does help
deal with the immediate problem, but that is an abstract and superficial
"solution." It's the kind of thing that makes sense only within the halls of
academe or some other equally isolated location.

That is, it isn't a solution _at all_, since in the real world of today's
capitalism you can't raise consumption without changing the concrete way in
which capitalism operates, i.e., what I've been calling "the regime."
(Similarly, you can't simply "raise prices" -- to avoid a Fisherian debt
deflation -- without changing the regime.) Specifically, that means a very
difficult transition from a "weak labor" regime to a "strong labor" one.

By the names I give the regimes, it should be very clear -- except to those
who refuse to understand -- that the transition would involve _massive class
struggles_. I said this before, but maybe this time it will sink in...
Frankly, given the globalized nature of capitalism these days, it is very
hard to imagine that a transition to a "strong labor" era would arrive in
the near future (i.e., during the next few decades).

Even with this kind of transition, there would be crises. But -- and this is
a major point of my theory -- the form of these crises would be different
from that of a "weak labor" era.

BTW, if anyone wants to characterize my views of crisis theory, here's a
very abstract summary: if the orthodoxy among macroeconomists (e.g., Brad
deLong) can be described as "short-term Keynesian/long-term classical," I
would say that I'm a "short-term Keynesian/long-term Marxist." That is,
Keynes (and sometimes even modern orthodox economists) can provide important
insights on the nature of capitalist dynamics in the short run, especially
when it concerns financial issues.  (Even when these folks do not have
anything to contribute, it's important to take them seriously rather than
simply dismissing them.) But in the long run (roughly, a decade or more),
the dynamics of capitalism are those of accumulation driven by the rate of
profit, with the system driving itself into a crisis of one sort or another
(ecological, economic, etc.)

How this works in practice depends on concrete circumstances. For example,
the "North" moderated serious crises for decades by dumping many of their
costs on the "South" and on nature.

I know that this is heresy to some, but I only want to hear how it is
illogical, contrary to specific data, one-sided (leaving out important parts
of the societal totality), etc. Giving vague references to empirical data,
worshiping Big Name thinkers, misrepresenting my opinions, or accusing me of
lacking theoretical purity simply prove such critics to be shallow or
dogmatic.
Jim Devine