[was: Re: [PEN-L:9306] Re: Re: Japan]
I'm familiar with the quotes below, which lean toward an
"underconsumptionist" interpretation of Marx's crisis theory. I think that
it represents only one part of his theory, which unfortunately was never
finished or made into a coherent whole. (See Simon Clarke's 1993 book,
MARX'S THEORY OF CRISIS, published by Macmillan.) The way I interpret the
role of underconsumption (in _my_ theory, not Marx's) is that it has two
possible roles:
(1) in an economic boom, accumulation can go "too far" relative to consumer
spending, due to wages stagnating relative to labor productivity, so that
the boom becomes increasingly unstable (since investment spending and
credit-based spending, especially on luxuries, are more unstable than
consumption of necessities not bought on credit, and because investment
creates new capacity that must be utilized). This theory makes sense in a
"labor abundant" epoch, as with the current "race to the bottom."
(2) after the boom collapses, the economy may fall into what I call an
"underconsumption trap," where individual capitalists strive to deal with
realization problems by cutting wages and speeding up (or stretching out)
production, which simply makes underconsumption problems worse on the
aggregate level. Accumulation might be encouraged, but is blocked by unused
capacity, excessive corporate debt, and the resulting pessimism about
future profitability. (These three interact and reinforce each other.) This
is likely to be combined with what Irving Fisher called a debt-deflation
depression.
The real world is more complicated than in the model, especially when you
bring in international economic and political relations, but see my article
at http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine/depr/D0.html. In "labor scarce"
situations, theory #1 doesn't apply, by the way. Something more like Marx's
original falling rate of profit theory applies.
Chris B. wrote:
>It needs to be seen as not one aspect, or the other, but as a contradiction.
>
>Marx related crises to contradictions: they are "always only momentary and
>violent solutions of existing contradictions."
>
>There is the contradiction between consumption and production. This is
>sharpened by the contradiction between socialised production and
>capitalist appropriation. There is a contradiction between the drive for
>unlimited exploitation by capital and the limited possibilities of
>realisation of the results of this exploitation.
>
>"The conditions of direct exploitation and those of the realisation of
>surplus-value are not identical. They are separated logically as well as
>by time and space. The first are only limited by the productive power of
>society, the last by the proportional relation of the various lines of
>production and by the consuming power of society. This last named power is
>not determined either by the absolute productive power nor by the absolute
>consuming power of society, but by the consuming power based on
>antagonistic conditions of distribution which reduces the consumption of
>the great mass of the population to a variable minimum within more or less
>narrow limits." Capital Vol iii Ch 15
>
>"But the more productiveness develops, the more it finds itself at
>variance with the narrow basis on which the conditions of consumption
>rest. It is no contradiction at all on this self-contradictory basis that
>there should be an excess of capital simultaneously with a growing surplus
>of population. [on a world scale - CB] For while a combination of these
>two would indeed increase the mass of produced surplus value, it would at
>the same time intensify the contradiction between the conditions under
>which this surplus-value is produced and those under which it is realised."
>
>Marx does not lend himself to one neat definitive statement of The
>Contradiction. One definition might be the contradiction between the
>unending need for capital to accumulate, and the limited purchasing power
>of the masses. But rather Marx describes a series of nesting
>contradictions which can be looked at from different aspects.
>
>Concerning the proposition as formulated by Jim, I would presume Keynesian
>policies could only be successful if they brought back into commodity
>exchange significant quantities of the means of production, in particular
>labour power, and at the same time increased purchasing power.
>
>Chris Burford
>
>London
>
>
>
>At 08:46 21/03/01 -0800, Jim wrote:
>>that is the question: is unused capacity in Japan due to inadequate
>>demand for the product -- or is it due to excessive investment in the
>>past? in the former case, simple Keynesian policies (like those I
>>suggested) might work, while in the latter case, they wouldn't.
>>
>>Chris B. writes:
>>>If you believe Marx literally, Japan has absolutely to write off large
>>>amounts of capital. The role of the state, as always is to smooth this
>>>over, and ensure civil peace without a change in the ruling class.
>>>
>>>It probably cannot be done just by writing off book values. A proportion
>>>of actual productive capital - workers, premises, raw materials,
>>>probably also has to be stripped of the status of capital, thrown out of
>>>circulation for a time, with a cheapening of the competitive price of
>>>labour power, until accumulation can start again.
>>
>>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
