I wrote:

> But the part that comes to my mind is one from the 1859 Contribution
> (a footnote?), in the context of monetary and banking crisis, were

Just to add that in Anti-Duhring (part 3, Socialism), Engels kind of
touches on the issue Brad raises (why didn't Marx note that public
spending can prevent or alleviate a crisis?).

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch24.htm

Engels is arguing that the conflict between increasingly socialized
productive forces and the capitalist form of appropriation flares up
in recurrent crises.  He then adds that the usual resolution of the
crisis (de-valorization of productive wealth and further concentration
of capital, leading to a further expansion in the scale of labor
cooperation) is sort of a de-facto recognition of increasingly
socialized character of the productive forces that capitalism
promotes.  Then, he says, the productive forces tend to rebel against
the capitalist mode of production (I guess the idea here is that the
conscious expression of this rebellion is the workers' class
struggle), and that this rebellion "forces the capitalist class itself
to treat them more and more as social productive forces, so far as
this is possible under capitalist conditions." Engels alludes to
joint-stock companies.  (Cooperatives come to mind as well.)  But
then, he adds, even this form becomes insufficient: "the official
representative of capitalist society — the state — will ultimately
have to *10 undertake the direction of production. This necessity for
conversion into state property is felt first in the great institutions
for intercourse and communication — the post office, the telegraphs,
the railways." Banks and other financial institutions?  Car makers?

In the preface <http://bit.ly/jf96lF>, Engels says that he read the
whole manuscript to Marx, who apparently approved of it, and even
contributed with one chapter.  This indicates very strongly that
Engels and Marx didn't exclude the possibility of the state
intervening to dampen the effects of a crisis.  From there, I find it
hard to believe that Marx would have rejected the notion that the
state could take preemptive measures in the face of large
disproportions, etc.  At the end of the day, the measures taken by the
state "under capitalist conditions" could only shift the loci of
crises and conflicts, but their ultimate source would remain in place.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to