Shane Mage wrote: > The point is that the tendency was called "irreversible" and Marx was quoted > to show that he said the exact opposite!
I wasn't disagreeing with this point. The word "irreversible" isn't right. The self-styled "Marxist orthodoxy" sees a _structural_ tendency prevailing under capitalism that leads to a rising value composition of capital and a falling rate of profit (all else constant), with the structural tendency going away only if capitalism is abolished. This tendency (if it actually happens) causes crises, which (as Shane says, if I understand correctly) means the theoretical or abstract tendency for the rate of profit to fall is reversed in practice. As far as I can see, since crises occur regularly, the crises will always reverse the tendency so that in practice there should be no long-term trend in the rate of profit at all, even if the value composition of capital tends to rise over the long haul. In addition, capitalism's normal "laws of motion" cause labor productivity to rise in the sector producing means of production, which lowers the value of those items. This means that the tendency for the technical composition of capital to rise (increased "capital intensity," which seems to fit empirical reality) is not always expressed in the form of a rise in the value composition of capital, especially when techniques of machinofacture spread to being used in the production of machines themselves). So the theory of the abstract tendency for the value composition to rise is weak. -- Jim Devine / "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
