Perhaps this might become more clear if you could explain the "secular trend" and "underconsumption" in relation to the US economy in recent history, let's say 1994-2000, the recession in 2001, and the recovery to 2006.
^^^^^ CB; As I understand it, a secular trend is not cyclical, i.e., it's always happening. All through 1994-2006 a great mass of people were being impoverished, losing jobs, having their incomes drop drastically. Or do you have some statistics showing the number of poor people going to zero or negligible at anytime ? The jobs were lost when companies couldn't sell enough. They couldn't sell enough because there wasn't enough mass demand. ^^^^^^ At least to me, none of that has anything to do with the workers' ability to purchase commodites. ^^^^ CB: That's the issue in dispute. ^^^^^ As for the fictitious capital portion-- just one comment: Again, if capital always relies on fictitious capital then how or why does that mechanism fail, and then prove incapable of "reanimating" capital? ^^^^^ CB; "capital" is not monolithic. Some of capital succeed. Some of capital fail at it. ^^^^ Fictitious capital, or speculation, lying, cheating, accompanies capital's every circuit. Its collapse, like its expansion is an index to what is going on in rates of return, and those rates of return are most definitely not driven by consumption. ^^^^^ CB: Not every capital's every circuit. Some capitals, some circuits. Some are adequate to succeed, some not. ^^^^^ Business cycle blunted? You can always tell when the capitalist economy is about to tank. It's precisely when people starting congratulating themselves for having triumphed over the business cycle. ^^^^ CB: That's what Fred M. was explaining: how the business cycle has been muted in recent years. I don't know that he is saying there will never be another depression in the U.S. The 2001 recession seems pretty muted to me, and I'd be the first to talk about it if it was a depression. ^^^^^ Marx does say that ultimately the source of capital's contradiction, crises, is in the poverty it creates and imposes on the society. That is a lot different than saying the source is in the inability of workers to buy the commodities they produce. ^^^^^ CB: Not really. Pretty much exactly the same thing. ^^^^^ Even more different is the analysis Marx provides through the 3 volumes of Capital, TSV, and the Grundrisse, of the conflicts between means and relations of production. ^^^^ CB: The fundamental contradiction capitalism between the social nature of production and the private nature of appropriation seems closer to what I'm talking about than what you are talking about. All you mention above is _not_ primarily or hardly at all aimed by Marx at explaining the cyclical crises. The main purpose of Marx's major work is not to explain the business cycle. So, you must miss the point of what you mention above. That's why he gives such a big name to the Absolute General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. To get the attention of people like you. The problems with capitalism are not cyclical ,but ongoing, continuous. ^^^^^ If anybody wants to know my analysis of the recent period, and I realize that is a big "if," you can check out the archives at: http://thewolfatthedoor.blogspot.com Look at Wages of Overproduction, 96 Tears, and others. None of this, and I'm not afraid of anyone "biting" me on my analysis, has anything to do with workers ability to purchase products, nor fictitious capital. ^^^^^ CB: You mean you don't realize that it does have something to do with purchase of products and fictitious capital in Marx's understanding. You probably think Marx wrote about those for fun and diversion from his main thesis - not.
