crises

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

[was: RE: [PEN-L:21538] Re: RE: Re: social democracy]

in reference to the phrase >>the well known empirical observation that
crises are most often not overcome as a result of stronger consumption and
prices<< Michael Perelman writes: >We have a hard time making
generalizations like this, because capitalism has not faced many crises.
How many would your count in the 20th century?  I assume that were not
talking about recessions.<

I didn't make the generalization and I don't think it's worth arguing over
the meaning of words like "crisis."

I think it's useful, though, to talk about different kinds of crises, e.g.,
mere cyclical crises (recessions), structural crises (the Great Depression
of the 1930s, the Great Stagflation of the 1970s, etc.), and crises of
capitalism (when it looks like the system might actually be replaced by
something else).

One of the unfortunate legacies of Marx is the confusion between cyclical
crises and bigger, more profound, crises. He seems to have responded to each
financial panic or business-cycle downturn by writing to Engels about how it
might open the door to socialism or at least important progressive change.
Or am I misinterpreting Marx?

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &  http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine