I wrote: >>When the crisis actually comes -- which becomes more
>>likely as imbalances worsen -- the accumulated debt encourages bankruptcies
>>and waves of bankruptcies and represents a barrier to continued
>>accumulation. (A barrier, I might add, that is eventually purged by the
>>recession and stagnation periods.)
Tom Walker writes:
>Jim: can/do you elaborate on this in terms of the non-synchronous
>development of the forces of production and the relations of production?
wow, what a big task. But I'll try, in desperate brevity.
for capitalism, I would substitute: "accumulation" for "development of the
forces of production" and "conditions for harmonious reproduction of
capitalism" for "relations of production." Thus, there is a contradiction
between accumulation and its basis.
The first substitution makes sense: under capitalism, the quantity and
quality of development of forces of production is basically those of
capitalist accumulation. This includes the growth of the labor force, which
becomes less and less of a Malthusian process when capitalism dominates.
The second substitution simply makes what we mean by the "relations of
production" more specific. Breaking the "conditions for harmonious
reproduction of capitalism" is pretty much the same thing as accumulation
undermining its own basis.
Bowles and an earlier incarnation of Gintis, in their book SCHOOLING IN
CAPITALIST AMERICA, talk about a contradiction between accumulation and
legitimation. I like O'Connor's interpretation, where it's accumulation and
reproduction that are in conflict. Reproduction means more than keeping the
working class and other oppressed groups passive ("legitimation") but also
keeping peace amongst the capitalists. The latter would be stated in terms
of conditions for harmonious growth. In my 1994 RESEARCH IN POLITICAL
ECONOMY article, I used a modified version of the Harrod-Domar model to
state these conditions.
Anyway, crises involve over-accumulation, where the "too far" of
accumulation is defined relative to the conditions for harmonious growth.
Capital tends to go too far because of competition and because growth helps
stabilize class relations. (Trickle down helps keep the masses in line.)
Depending on historical conditions, overaccumulation occurs either relative
to supply constraints (as in the late 1960s) or relative to consumption (as
in the late 1920s and seemingly the 1990s). This can lead to either
stagnation or recovery, depending on the historical conditions again.
is this what you were looking for, Tom?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &
http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html
