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
overcoming challenge are tested and possibly found wanting. The 1930s were
a real crisis; the 1970s, a norm; the 1950s and 1960s, an unusally sunny
period.
Doug
Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Left Business Observer
212-874-4020 (voice)
212-874-3137 (fax)
On Sun, 27 Feb 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "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
