Julio Huato wrote:
Patrick,
I just read your article on the Global Crisis. I'm not really sure I
get your point about over-accumulation.
First, it's not clear to me whether over-accumulation is, in your
view, (1) a chronic, systemic condition of capitalism,
Yes, which gets worse and worse
Patrick wrote:
According to Harvey, the contradictions of capitalism were 'displaced'
instead of resolved: they were moved across time and space, especially via
hyperactive financial markets. Time is accounted for in the vast credit
bubble, which lets you pay now, on the basis of debt, and hope
Patrick Bond wrote:
Ted Winslow wrote:
The methods of accumulation characteristic of capitalism in its
infancy - the methods of primitive accumulation - are internally
related to the particular form of capitalist subjectivity then
dominant. They can't recur in that form after the internal
Julio Huato wrote:
This may be totally off target, but it seems to me that -- contingent
on time, place, area of the economy -- capital is alternatively
over-accumulated and under-accumulated with respect to profitability.
If you mean systematic uneven development, true. But the broad
On Dec 22, 2007, at 3:54 AM, Patrick Bond wrote:
Doug Henwood wrote:
I've just about finished reading an essay by Russell Jacoby in an
early-1970s Telos on the crisis tradition in Marxism. Jacoby traces
the origins of the school to the Russian populists, who argued that
capitalism could never
Doug Henwood wrote:
According to Jacoby,
whose staying power hasn't been so great... so maybe take some time this
holiday to read these folk, seeing as how a serious financial crisis is
bubbling over. Their work's online for the most part.
... Of course,
the crises of the 1930s led to fascism
Greetings Economists,
On Dec 22, 2007, at 6:36 AM, Doug Henwood wrote:
Of course,
the crises of the 1930s led to fascism and the New Deal, not
revolution, so the empirical record isn't impressive.
Doyle;
Russia and China during this period were in the throws of revolution.
This comment is a
Doyle Saylor wrote:
South Africa, and so on happened in a non Depression
period.
Technically that's not so; SA witnessed declining per capita growth from
1989-93; the transition was in 1994 and thanks to myriad forms of
deregulation, corporate profits were soon restored. That's of course why
Greetings Economists,
On Dec 22, 2007, at 7:59 AM, Patrick Bond wrote:
Technically that's not so; SA witnessed declining per capita growth
from
1989-93; the transition was in 1994 and thanks to myriad forms of
deregulation, corporate profits were soon restored. That's of course
why
big capital
Doug Henwood wrote:
I gotta say, as much as I admire Harvey, I find accumulation by
dispossession to be a grand-sounding but fairly empty concept. When
has capitalism not stolen things - resources, land, urban
neighborhoods, communal property, you name it? It's just standard
operating
I think this is your central point, right, Ted?
Ted Winslow wrote:
The methods of accumulation characteristic of capitalism in its
infancy - the methods of primitive accumulation - are internally
related to the particular form of capitalist subjectivity then
dominant. They can't recur in that
On Dec 22, 2007, at 10:21 AM, Patrick Bond wrote:
Doug Henwood wrote:
According to Jacoby,
whose staying power hasn't been so great...
Dunno what you mean by this. His book on the American banalization of
psychoanalysis, which I read long ago, was great, and this essay is
pretty fine stuff
What I recall from the Jacoby article was the idea that the German Social
Democrats
argued that they need not engage in revolutionary activities because the economy
would do their work for them. They should retain their respectability so that
when
the crisis comes, the people will turn to them.
Doug Henwood wrote:
Sam Gindin said two striking things in that Brecht Forum
debate with Brenner: 1) the crisis isn't in capitalism, it's in the
left; 2) if you'd told him in 1975 that the U.S. working class would
take 30 years of falling real wages, union busting, benefit cuts, and
rising
Doug Henwood wrote:
And what about financial crisis? Lehman Bros. did a count recently
and came up with 30 of them since 1900, or one every three years. Off
the top of my head, I remember these since the early 1970s:
* Franklin National
* Russia/LTCM
Case studies 2 and 3 in my wife's
On Dec 22, 2007, at 1:16 PM, Jim Devine wrote:
Even though it wasn't really Marx's phrase, the primitive in
primitive accumulation comes not from technology (railroads, etc.)
but from relations of production: it refers to extra-market coercion
used to start the capitalist ball rolling. The
Michael Perelman wrote:
What I recall from the Jacoby article was the idea that the German Social
Democrats
argued that they need not engage in revolutionary activities because the economy
would do their work for them.
Hilferding said, in 1910: If you take over the six Berlin banks you'll
On Dec 22, 2007, at 1:27 PM, Louis Proyect wrote:
Doug Henwood wrote:
And what about financial crisis? Lehman Bros. did a count recently
and came up with 30 of them since 1900, or one every three years. Off
the top of my head, I remember these since the early 1970s:
* Franklin National
*
On Dec 22, 2007, at 1:31 PM, Patrick Bond wrote:
Michael Perelman wrote:
What I recall from the Jacoby article was the idea that the German
Social Democrats
argued that they need not engage in revolutionary activities
because the economy
would do their work for them.
Hilferding said, in
Jim Devine wrote:
Doug Henwood wrote:
Sam Gindin said two striking things in that Brecht Forum
debate with Brenner: 1) the crisis isn't in capitalism, it's in the
left; 2) if you'd told him in 1975 that the U.S. working class would
take 30 years of falling real wages, union busting,
me:
Even though it wasn't really Marx's phrase, the primitive in
primitive accumulation comes not from technology (railroads, etc.)
but from relations of production: it refers to extra-market coercion
used to start the capitalist ball rolling. The building of railroads
in the US involved
On Dec 22, 2007, at 1:59 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
Gindin is playing what I call sandbox
politics: the political theorist who pushes around imaginary forces in
the little sandbox playground of his mind.
Hmm, all those years he's spent involved with Canadian unions and
worker education - nothing
Patrick Bond wrote:
In my view, the proper conception of 'crisis' is Robert Cox's, when the
internal logic of a system is inadequate to get the stabilising and
equilibrating forces back into play, and an external shock outside the
logic of the system (i.e. devalorisation in the case of
Doug Henwood wrote:
I find this argument completely opaque. I'm not pooh-poohing
anything. What I'm saying, and probably for the 40th time to you, is
that while the possibility of crisis
Well if you take the Coxian position, which you don't want to do (see
below), we're in a crisis.
... If
Greetings Economists,
On Dec 22, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Doug Henwood wrote:
f you say the biggest problem with capitalism is that
it's always about to off the rails, then the implication is that you
want to preserve the status quo.
Doyle;
I think you won the catastrophist argument long ago. The
On Dec 19, 2007 7:38 PM, Max B. Sawicky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Somebody's got to fill my shoes. By the way, you're up to 400
(different) visitors a day.
We need a couple more authors, however. There still needs to be more
posts per day.
Anybody interested, drop me a note. You too could
Capitalism was not establish on a particular date. Some people see capitalism
in
ancient Sumeria and the like since there were markets at the time.
Similarly, capitalist crises do not suddenly show up one day. The system has
many
contradictions. Sometimes they accumulate enough to reach a
Michael Perelman wrote:
Capitalism was not establish on a particular date. Some people see
capitalism in
ancient Sumeria and the like since there were markets at the time.
C-C or C-M-C may have existed in ancient Sumeria, but not M-C-M' with
labor-power as a commodity. The latter defines
Right, but some people still argue that capitalism has an ancient legacy.
On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 06:09:26PM -0800, Jim Devine wrote:
Michael Perelman wrote:
Capitalism was not establish on a particular date. Some people see
capitalism in
ancient Sumeria and the like since there were
Patrick wrote:
No comrade, the crisis is unfolding now, right now, and your fairy tale
of intrinsic US financial power (shared by Sam and Leo) is taking a
twist you comrades didn't expect.
Has the current crisis really caught those on the left - and beyond
yes, an ancient legacy called class exploitation, which preceded
capitalism by a few millennia...
On 12/22/07, Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right, but some people still argue that capitalism has an ancient legacy.
On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 06:09:26PM -0800, Jim Devine wrote:
Marvin Gandall wrote:
Has the current crisis really caught those on the left - and beyond - by
surprise? There has been much talk for the past several years about the
housing bubble and the danger posed to the global financial system by the
vast new array of arcane and untested derivative
Patrick,
I just read your article on the Global Crisis. I'm not really sure I
get your point about over-accumulation.
First, it's not clear to me whether over-accumulation is, in your
view, (1) a chronic, systemic condition of capitalism, (2) a tendency
in a given stage in the history of
Patrick Bond wrote:
Very eloquent summary, Julio, which is excellent but for the lack of
attention to the overaccumulation dynamic. Doesn't that feature in your
story? (That's also where Sam, Leo, Doug, Giovanni and a few others
depart from the crisis theorists.)
Thanks, Patrick. Well, I
Greetings Economists,
On Dec 20, 2007, at 4:51 PM, Julio Huato wrote:
My telegraphic opinion re.
the prospects of capitalism is that capitalism is a bundle.
Doyle;
I look forward to more remarks like this. Very well stated which
feeds my own thoughts. I have begun to feel lack of options in
Doyle wrote:
The intelligence agencies of the U.S. have implied this end of
neoliberalism would open the door to a revived Marxism.
To the extent Greenspan's Age of Turbulence is not a inane act of
self-rationalization, of public exculpation of his past sins, it is an
equally dull attempt to
On Dec 20, 2007, at 10:48 PM, Patrick Bond wrote:
Very eloquent summary, Julio, which is excellent but for the lack of
attention to the overaccumulation dynamic. Doesn't that feature in
your
story? (That's also where Sam, Leo, Doug, Giovanni and a few others
depart from the crisis theorists.)
Julio Huato wrote:
I always wonder why, if communism is dead (except, says Greenspan, in
North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, and Venezuela), they need to keep beating
the corpse.
because the neoliberal slogan There Is No Alternative, when
translated into Borg, becomes Resistance is Futile.
Patrick Bond
Very eloquent summary, Julio, which is excellent...
^^^
CB: ditto
Julio Huato wrote:
I don't know what
this over-accumulation story is about. Would you summarize it for me?
This may be totally off target, but it seems to me that -- contingent
on time, place, area of the economy -- capital is alternatively
over-accumulated and under-accumulated with
Doug Henwood wrote:
But, I gotta say, I'm not sure what you mean by overaccumulation
here. Is it just another way of saying that capitalism periodically
overinvests, and has to work that off over time? If so, then that's
little more than a theory of the business cycle. Are you making a
Jim Devine wrote:
While there can be sectoral over- or under-accumulation, there can be
macro-level over-accumulation, too, which then leads to something
which might be called under-accumulation but that term seems
confusing. (the idea of alternating under- and over-accumulation in
different
okay.
On Dec 21, 2007 3:56 PM, Julio Huato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Devine wrote:
While there can be sectoral over- or under-accumulation, there can be
macro-level over-accumulation, too, which then leads to something
which might be called under-accumulation but that term seems
Michael Perelman wrote:
I don't think so. Admittedly, the finals weeks have been draining.
Right. The finals.
Taking a break from marking and grading. My telegraphic opinion re.
the prospects of capitalism is that capitalism is a bundle. We need
to un-bundle it a bit -- to the extent most
On Dec 20, 2007 4:51 PM, Julio Huato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
destruction of the natural environment -- which together amount to (7)
the degradation and destruction of human and perhaps all life on
earth.
Is it actually possible to destroy all life on earth?
-raghu.
Very eloquent summary, Julio, which is excellent but for the lack of
attention to the overaccumulation dynamic. Doesn't that feature in your
story? (That's also where Sam, Leo, Doug, Giovanni and a few others
depart from the crisis theorists.) So in addition to, and both causing
and flowing from
On December 7th, there was an interesting debate on the current economic
situation between Sam Gindin and Robert Brenner at the Brecht Forum in
New York that can be seen here.
Gindin is associated with a current within Marxism that tends to be
skeptical of claims that the capitalist system is
Louis Proyect
On December 7th, there was an interesting debate on the current economic
situation between Sam Gindin and Robert Brenner at the Brecht Forum in
New York that can be seen here.
Gindin is associated with a current within Marxism that tends to be
skeptical of claims that the
Louis Proyect wrote:
Gindin is associated with a current within Marxism that tends to be
skeptical of claims that the capitalist system is passing through some
exceptional crisis. In his presentation, he characterized the post-WWII
boom as an exception to the general rule, one in which the
Jim Devine wrote:
Perhaps they're not lining up on different sides as much as asking
different questions (talking past each other)?
Surely you must be aware that Brenner's 1998 NLR article generated
nearly as much controversy as his earlier NLR attack on Paul Sweezy. An
entire issue of
me:
Perhaps they're not lining up on different sides as much as asking
different questions (talking past each other)?
Louis Proyect wrote:
Surely you must be aware that Brenner's 1998 NLR article generated
nearly as much controversy as his earlier NLR attack on Paul Sweezy.
Yup. But I
I don't think so. Admittedly, the finals weeks have been draining.
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:49:24PM -0800, Jim Devine wrote:
Pen-l's been dead since a lot of the economists' energy has been
siphoned over to EconoSpeak. So blame Max. ;-)
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California
Jim Devine wrote:
Perhaps they're not lining up on different sides as much as asking
different questions (talking past each other)?
I've sat with the comrades at York for many months, and in Socialist
Register meetings, and find this the healthiest of debates, one many of
us keep carrying on.
Michael Perelman wrote:
I don't think so. Admittedly, the finals weeks have been draining.
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:49:24PM -0800, Jim Devine wrote:
Pen-l's been dead since a lot of the economists' energy has been
siphoned over to EconoSpeak. So blame Max. ;-)
Somebody's got to fill my
54 matches
Mail list logo
