"Crisis" means many things (again, I refer commentators and
critics to my book Meaning of Crisis). One thing it means
is "turning point" -- time when little or nothing can be taken for
granted, time when wills are tested, time when what an individual
does may count for something. Also, time of rebuilding structures
of social domination vs. time of social transformation. "Crisis" also
means "struggle," not just "danger and opportunity."
In a very general sense, capital is always in crisis, as it
is a crisis-ridden and also crisis-dependent system. Capital
accumulates through crisis, e.g., much high tech capital
accumulated in the late 1970s and 1980s because the crisis in
old industries led them to demand cost-reducing innovations, i.e.,
the market for Dept I goods and services is driven by the need to cut
costs in hard times, as well as the need to expand capacity in
good times.
Schumpter's theory of creative destruction is an account of a kind
of "permanent crisis." So are manyu accounts of modernity.
Who feels safe, settled, secure, etc., these days? Or in 1900
or 1800, for that matter?
Doug H's "normal operation of a frightfully dynamic thing" isn't
bad. But the "dynamism" comes from constant "barriers to overcome"
(not "limits"), constant struggles in the market and workplace and
community, more or less severe depending on circumstances.
All economists, or most, have their views of capitalism warped by
the "normalcy" of the 1950s-end of Bretton Woods or first oil
shock. Even then, things weren't predictable, although
more so than today, by far. Who would have thought that my daily
paper headlined today, "The US is once again on top of the world"?
Someone who saw capital in the US accumulating through the long
crisis of the 1970s and 1980s wouldn't be surprised by this headline.
The standard Marxist definition of a crisis as a "rupture" in
one or more circuits of capital is a good beginning, but too
narrowly technical.
Jim O'Connor
