I'd certainly agree with the characterization of capitalism Jim O'Connor
offers here, but it seems a misuse of the word to call something normal a
crisis. I'd prefer to confine the use of the term to a situation when the
very reproduction of the system is threatened - when its mechanisms of
overco
I'd certainly agree with the characterization of capitalism Jim O'Connor
offers here, but it seems a misuse of the word to call something normal a
crisis. I'd prefer to confine the use of the term to a situation when the
very reproduction of the system is threatened - when its mechanisms of
overco
Going beyond quibbles about the exact meaning of the word "crisis,"
I like Doug's treatment of the 1950s and 1960s as an unusual period.
I think that if we treated that period as the EXCEPTION rather
than as the RULE, it would lead to clearer thinking. Among other
things, old Karlos' ability to p
Going beyond quibbles about the exact meaning of the word "crisis,"
I like Doug's treatment of the 1950s and 1960s as an unusual period.
I think that if we treated that period as the EXCEPTION rather
than as the RULE, it would lead to clearer thinking. Among other
things, old Karlos' ability to p
How can a system that has transformed the world utterly, whether you
measure from the fourteenth century or the eighteenth or even 1945, that
barrels on ahead, grabbing new territories and peoples into its hold day
by day, be said to be in crisis, whether from the beginning or over the
last 20-30
How can a system that has transformed the world utterly, whether you
measure from the fourteenth century or the eighteenth or even 1945, that
barrels on ahead, grabbing new territories and peoples into its hold day
by day, be said to be in crisis, whether from the beginning or over the
last 20-30
Jim O'Connor writes:
> Or dead wrong, as capital has been in crisis since the beginning.
The beginning of what?
Assuming capitalism has an inception date, are you suggesting capitalism
has been "in crisis" since the beginning of capitalism?
If so, is your statement not, by your own definiti
Jim O'Connor writes:
> Or dead wrong, as capital has been in crisis since the beginning.
The beginning of what?
Assuming capitalism has an inception date, are you suggesting capitalism
has been "in crisis" since the beginning of capitalism?
If so, is your statement not, by your own definiti
Doug,
I agree with you about this: I think Karl's definition of crisis is
better than the "permanent crisis" one. One big problem with
all crisis theory, of either sort, is the presumption that crises
actually can mean the fall of capitalism. But crises, as we
academics are wont to say, may be n
Doug,
I agree with you about this: I think Karl's definition of crisis is
better than the "permanent crisis" one. One big problem with
all crisis theory, of either sort, is the presumption that crises
actually can mean the fall of capitalism. But crises, as we
academics are wont to say, may be n
forwarded message of interest:
Original message
No one asked anyone to pledge allegiance to any quote, though the MR folks
have been known to dismiss people who disagree with them as "not really
Marxists." In this case, however, I think Karl
While fidelity to the gospel should not be the measure of
the truth of any statement regarding crisis, I too find
the notion of permanent crisis to be somewhat ridiculous.
There's the Luxemburg variety, which asserts that capitalism
survives only by dumping unrealized surplus on regions
external t
While fidelity to the gospel should not be the measure of
the truth of any statement regarding crisis, I too find
the notion of permanent crisis to be somewhat ridiculous.
There's the Luxemburg variety, which asserts that capitalism
survives only by dumping unrealized surplus on regions
external t
Thanks a million. So where does that leave the Monthly Review school and
their theories of permanent/irreversible/etc. crisis?
Doug
Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Left Business Observer
212-874-4020 (voice)
212-874-3137 (fax)
On Sat, 19 Feb 1994, Michael Lebowitz wrote:
> In Message Sat, 19
Thanks a million. So where does that leave the Monthly Review school and
their theories of permanent/irreversible/etc. crisis?
Doug
Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Left Business Observer
212-874-4020 (voice)
212-874-3137 (fax)
On Sat, 19 Feb 1994, Michael Lebowitz wrote:
> In Message Sat, 19
In Message Mon, 21 Feb 1994 15:28:06 -0500 (EST),
Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Thanks a million. So where does that leave the Monthly Review school and
>their theories of permanent/irreversible/etc. crisis?
>
>Doug
The answer, I suppose, is that it leaves MR firmly in a Marxian
In Message Mon, 21 Feb 1994 15:28:06 -0500 (EST),
Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Thanks a million. So where does that leave the Monthly Review school and
>their theories of permanent/irreversible/etc. crisis?
>
>Doug
The answer, I suppose, is that it leaves MR firmly in a Marxian
IMHO, the Monthly Review folks can't be criticized be x
simply because they don't pledge ak allegiance to some qy
quotes in Marx's unpublished manuscripts. They can claim
(reasonably enough) that they use the word "crisis" in
a different sense than did Marx. Or they can quibble about
how long
IMHO, the Monthly Review folks can't be criticized be x
simply because they don't pledge ak allegiance to some qy
quotes in Marx's unpublished manuscripts. They can claim
(reasonably enough) that they use the word "crisis" in
a different sense than did Marx. Or they can quibble about
how long
similar to Walter Daum's comment of on "state capitalism":
One critique of Keynesian policies is that it can short-circuit the
normal purgative effect of capitalist crises.
This can lead to the persistence of profit-rate-depressing
imbalances and thus a relatively permatnent crisis.
Of course "tem
similar to Walter Daum's comment of on "state capitalism":
One critique of Keynesian policies is that it can short-circuit the
normal purgative effect of capitalist crises.
This can lead to the persistence of profit-rate-depressing
imbalances and thus a relatively permatnent crisis.
Of course "tem
Doug Henwood and Mike Lebowitz have cited Marx's footnote that "permanent
crises do not exist."
Some of us of a state capitalist persuasion regarding the last USSR et al
used to argue that since crises are a temporary bloodletting, a momentary
solution to the overproduction of capital, and since
Doug Henwood and Mike Lebowitz have cited Marx's footnote that "permanent
crises do not exist."
Some of us of a state capitalist persuasion regarding the last USSR et al
used to argue that since crises are a temporary bloodletting, a momentary
solution to the overproduction of capital, and since
Doug Henwood wrote,
"Somewhere - I think it was the Grundrisse - Marx said there is no
such thing as permanent crisis. Now I can't locate the quote. Can
anyone help me out?"
Please post to pen-l; I'm interested too. Thanks.
Blair Sandler
Doug Henwood wrote,
"Somewhere - I think it was the Grundrisse - Marx said there is no
such thing as permanent crisis. Now I can't locate the quote. Can
anyone help me out?"
Please post to pen-l; I'm interested too. Thanks.
Blair Sandler
In Message Sat, 19 Feb 1994 12:11:08 -0500 (EST),
Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Somewhere - I think it was the Grundrisse - Marx said there is no such
>thing as permanent crisis. Now I can't locate the quote. Can anyone help
>me out?
>
Doug,
The following statement a` ears as a
In Message Sat, 19 Feb 1994 12:11:08 -0500 (EST),
Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Somewhere - I think it was the Grundrisse - Marx said there is no such
>thing as permanent crisis. Now I can't locate the quote. Can anyone help
>me out?
>
Doug,
The following statement a` ears as a
27 matches
Mail list logo
