At 08:48 24/07/99 -0400, Jim F wrote:
> They follow Mattick in accepting an
>overaccumulation theory of crisis (based on the law of falling
>profit rates) and in rejecting theories of underconsumption
>even though one can easily come up with plenty of citations
>from Marx, Engels, and Lenin which indicate that they
>accepted such theories.
Are these separate theories or just aspects under analysis? Surely
overaccumulation and underconsumption are just two sides of the same
contradiction - that between the endless need for capital to accumulate
surplus value and the limited purchasing power of the masses. I agree Marx
referred to both aspects of course.
How to express the interlocking contradictions is debatable: what is
fundamental, what is primary, what is decisive.
It can be said there is a contradiction between production and consumption
in all societies. But under capitalism the contradiction between the social
character of production and the capitalist form of appropriation is the
chief cause of the crises.
The contradiction between unlimited exploitation under capitalism and the
limited possibilities of realisation of the results of this exploitation
finds its sharpest expression in the crises.
I have checked and reproduced formulations here from Political Economy,
Marxist Study Courses originially published as pamphlets under the auspices
of the British Communist Party in 1932 and 1933. They were later reprinted
and distributed for a time in the USA. They were reprinted in 1976 by
Banner Press, Chicago, Library of Concress No 76-43450.
Whatever the wording of the contradictions, surely people who focus on
overaccumulation and people who focus on underconsumption are looking at
the same contradiction.
Jim F:
> The class struggle in LM's view has effectively
>come to an end with the bourgeoisie as the victors. But in
>their view this victory by the bourgeoisie has been accompanied
>by the intellectual and moral exhaustion of that class which has
>in their view lost its traditional commitment to rationalism and
>science and has also lost its traditional willingness to take risks.
I am not a fan of LM and there are all sorts of subjective factors about
whether one feels drawn towards a particular group and wants to affiliate
to it, and whether one would be received by it, but this characterisation
of LM's position here does not seem so remarkable.
That the bourgeoisie remain victors is uncontroversial. It is not in
dispute that there are problems for the working class in overthrowing the
bourgoisie, and few think the crisis of capitalism will be automatic - that
it will fall without being pushed.
So the propostion here is that LM thinks the working class has lost its
willingness to take risks.
Plus that the working class has lost its "traditional commitment to
rationalism and science". What is meant here? Does not a lot hang on
perceptions of rationalism and of science? Perhaps the traditional view was
not very dialectical. Perhaps it also privileged consciousness, whereas
marxism has an implicit theory of partial consciousness.
Distaste though different groups may feel for each other, is the argument
not about the same objective political and economic contradictions?
Chris Burford
London
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
