Eva Durant supposes that my essay misses the importance of profits. She then
enumerates several points having to do with the non-correspondence between
productivity and profitability. If I may so characterize Eva's point, it
refers to Marx's analysis of the internal contradictions of capitalism
(i.e., forces of production versus relations of production).
Far from missing this point, my analysis is consistent with Marx's analysis
of the internal contradictions of capitalism. For Marx, the fact of this
internal contradiction was the starting point -- not the conclusion -- of
his analysis. Marx was concerned to show not just the inevitability of
crisis but also how it was that, in spite of this contradiction, extended
periods of economic stability could exist and how the framework of
capitalism could periodically renew and reform itself.
Perhaps for Eva such a demonstration seems a "well meant but a cosmetic, a
superficial idea that disregards the realities of capitalism." But I'd
rather stick with the unexpurgated text of Capital rather than the "more
realistic" socialist readers' digest version.
All that I have addressed in my essay is the possibility of an economic
revival of capitalism. What I haven't addressed is the political prospect of
such a revival. The second question is, of course, the decisive one but also
much more complex. I happen to agree with Eva that the political prospect is
not bright. But that's precisely why I think it is important to show that an
economic revival is possible within the logic of capital. It seems to me
that at this stage in historical development, capitalists as a class are
antagonistic to the renewal of capitalism as a system. Yes, this would be
the final contradiction.
What capitalists want today is not "efficiency, competition and free
markets" but a guaranteed income for capital -- a perpetual motion machine
of compound interest. I think it is important not just to assert that, but
to show it.
regards,
Tom Walker
