> >^^^^^^^^^ > >CB: Yes, actually, I was going to type in some of Perlo's chapter >"The Rate of Profit". The funny thing is Perlo uses both the famous >"anti-consumptionist" quote from Vol. II that you stand on and the >"ultimate cosuming power of society" quote from Vol. III that shows >your view is only part of Marx's view.
Charles, I wrote a long reply to you that I do not block inadequate consumption from view; I attempt to explain in terms of difficulties in production. You never did reply. So I am not going through ground hog day with you. > So, the funny thing is your list position may end up closer to the >Staliinist-Leninist economist analysis than you thought , ha ha. Have you read Richard Day's book on Soviet economic debates. I have. Varga prevailed, and it should be obvious to you that I reject his underconsumptionist theory. Moreover, I reject the whole Bolshevik (Lenin-Trotsky-Bukharin)deformation of the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat. I think Rosa Luxemburg, Paul Mattick, Hal Draper and Paul Thomas (my former teacher) are correct. I think we were moved further away from Marx by the Bolsheviks. That is the source of our present acrimony. You said that we all were reading Marx because of the Bolsheviks; you do not speak for me. By now, you should know that you do not speak for me. So why ignite matters with sloganeering? > I don't think you are focused in on what the orthodox Marxist >position is in writing. what is the orthodox Marxist position. > > > >Rakesh: How does Perlo explain the turning points in the business cycle in >which you had earlier informed us Marxists have little interest? > >"Economic Crises and The Business Cycle" is chapter 15 (out of 18 ) >in Perlo's book. Similarly to Marx's leaving his direct discussion >of crisis to Vol. III. The placement of the subject tells you >something of the importance of it already. I don't think such conclusions can be drawn from placement. Marx's crisis theory comes together in the third volume. > >But back to the direct point on this, don't you agree that the >Marxist ( Marx's ) position is that there is no taming the business >cycle under capitalist relations of production ? No, the business cycle can indeed be tamed; contradictions deferred for some time. I already wrote this. > And that therefore, even if you have the perfect explanation of it, >nonetheless that explanation cannot be implemented to stop crises ? One kind of explanation (underconsumption) may imply that certain reforms could tame them even if the analyst herself rejects that conclusion. The reasoning matters. > So , business cycle theory has to be a secondary concern for Marxists ? no. What if the theory is one of widening and deepening business cycles? >Marxists are against capitalism even during the boom phase of the >business cycle. Business cycle moderation is a reform struggle, not >that Marxists ignore reforms. And what is your reform program again >? I know you said it but one more time. No not one more time. Find the posts and respond to them. > >And on reforms, it is common sense that an "underconsumption" claim >is solved by giving the working masses something more to consume >with, i.e. money. Isn't it obvious that Marxists' short term or >reform solutions must be some version of raising the incomes of >workers, not figuring out how to raise the rate of profit of those >who profit. I don't know what you are responding to. Rakesh
