Re: O Connor Fiscal Crisis of the State
Never got to it. Still want to. max -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Rakesh Bhandari Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 1:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: O Connor Fiscal Crisis of the State I had forgotten about James O' Connor's classic Fiscal Crisis of the State. Max Sawicky was writing a review of it. Max, do you write the review? May we read it? yours, r
O Connor Fiscal Crisis of the State
I had forgotten about James O' Connor's classic Fiscal Crisis of the State. Max Sawicky was writing a review of it. Max, do you write the review? May we read it? yours, r
RE: Re: Re: Re: Fiscal Crisis of the State
thanks. I don't expect to resolve any debates about Marx, or even to engage them. I don't know anything about that stuff. All I could hope to do is fairly evaluate JOC's theory in light of subsequent experience. I don't have a horse in the marx interpretation contest, so in that sense I may be a bit more objective than others.mbs Max, I think you might very helpful the discussion . . .
Fiscal Crisis of the State
Jim O'C writes that the introduction to Fiscal Crisis is published in CNS, 12, 1, March 2001 issue. It's pretty good and clarifies a few things. All best wishes, Jim -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Fiscal Crisis of the State
Max, I think you might very helpful the discussion of O'Connor in John Bellamy Foster's chapter on the state in The Theory of Monopoly Capitalism: An Elaboration of Marxian Political Economy and his chapter "Marxian Economics and the State" in his edited book The Faltering Economy: The Problem of Accumulation Under Monopoly Capitalism. Foster wants to free the Sweezy monopoly capital/overexploitation theory from any charge of reformism. While emphasizing the growth in the potential surplus and thus need for a Keynesian programme to maintain full employment, he attempts to show that in the face of the power of monopoly capital both the regime of taxation and the composition of social spending cannot be optimal towards the end of full employment. Taxes weigh heavily on the working class (Foster criticizes O Connor's treatment here) and military spending is large though it contributes to the long term stagnation of the economy. Moreover, monopoly firms may respond to the Keynesian stimulus through price, rather than output, increases. I am being very sketchy. Foster thus attempts to lay out a theory of the state for a monopolized already mechanized capitalist economy. He argues that there is a need to go beyond Marx whose theory of the falling rate of profit fit for a competitive, mechanizing (i.e, labor rather than capital saving) early capitalism. Now the potential surplus is massive while the inducement to invest has been weakened by the monopolization of the economy. Foster thus subjects Mattick, Cogoy and Yaffe to criticism. At this point, I would like to point out that I think Foster misunderstands the provisional acceptance of Say's Law by Grossmann and Mattick for a commitment to its actual validity. That is, Marx himself in fact provisionally accepted Say's Law at times in order to develop a theory of crises and cycles that is based on inadequate profits *independent* of any shortage of demand, a consequence of more fundamental contradictions than those arising from the non fufillment of Say's Law. David Yaffe whom Foster criticizes in detail for example handles Say's Law in just this way. Yaffe relies heavily here on Bernice Shoul, " Karl Marx and Say's Law" Quaterly Journal of Economics (Nov 1957), and Foster does not grapple with her argument. So the debates in marxist crisis theory seem not to have been resolved. We still have monopoly capital/overexploitation theory, disproportionality theories, now Brenner's vertical overcompetition theory (which in essence may be a neo schumpeterian theory of insufficient exit of inefficient capital, i think), simple underconsumption theories, falling rate and mass of profit theories. Max, we are all counting on you to resolve these debates once and for all in your review of O Connor. thanks, rakesh
Re: Re: Re: Fiscal Crisis of the State
> > > >> I understand there is a new edition of this coming out. I'm thinking > >> of doing a piece on it and would like to know of references to other > >> works that refer or react directly to O'Connor's book. > > > >Habermas's _Legitimation Crisis_ which came out the same year (1973) both > >refers to it and was influenced by it. You might also check out, if you have time, Michel Aglietta's _Theory of Capitalist Regulation: the US Experience_. In the introduction, Aglietta dispenses with an elaboration of a theory of the state by saying that he basically agrees with O'Connor (and others). Much of Mike Davis's argument about the Reagan years is based on a reading of Aglietta and regulationist lit--and so, I think, puts him in O'Connor's orbit. Likewise, the regulation school itself, which is fairly under-rated if acknowledged at all--tho unfairly so, I think, especially in Robt. Brenner's case--presses into service similar notions of state-economy transformations as O' Connor. Christian
Re: Re: Fiscal Crisis of the State
>On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Max Sawicky wrote: > >> I understand there is a new edition of this coming out. I'm thinking >> of doing a piece on it and would like to know of references to other >> works that refer or react directly to O'Connor's book. > >Habermas's _Legitimation Crisis_ which came out the same year (1973) both >refers to it and was influenced by it. excellent point. i was once encouraged to become a habermasian but if you read those chapters on crisis and state theory, i think you'll agree that mattick sr has held up much better. habermas cites mattick here as well though he misses his point. also a good discussion of O'Connor in Erik Olin Wright *class, crisis and the state*, pp. 154ff. Not surprising since i think they were in close touch in the 70s, perhaps both editing kapitalistate. What is interesting (perhaps disturbing) is that wright, seemingly anticipating mancur olson, argues that the pluralist politics prevents the state from concentrating on productivity or accumulation enhancing forms of 'investment.' It seems that Wright uses O'Connor's split between accumulation and legitimation towards his own ends. So Wright holds out the possibility that a different mix of govt investments (less unproductive, less legitimizing sop for the special interest groups and more for the sake of improving productivity and reducing capital costs) could well stabilize the economy by overcoming underconsumption problems while spurring capital accumulation at the same time. Wright thus points to the possibility that a different kind of state intervention could yield what O'Connor calls a 'social industrial complex.' Wright's pessimism is not rooted in the possible limits of his envisioned productivist Keynesian program in the creation of this quasi utopia but rather in the political obstacles that could stymie such a program. While Wright includes military contractors as one of the possible recalcitrant special interests, he seems implicitly to deride democratic pressures from below for demanding unproductive expenditures, instead of more so called productive investments. He almost seems to view society from a technocratic point of view (james galbraith actually repudiates this kind of productivist and technocratic view of fiscal policy in created unequal). This is certainly not true of O'Connor himself who after all stuck with Marxism. Wright also does not seem to understand fully the implications of Mattick's strictly marxian understanding of govt debt as fictitious capital. I am pretty sure that max would not share this understanding. Rakesh
Re: Fiscal Crisis of the State
On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Max Sawicky wrote: > I understand there is a new edition of this coming out. I'm thinking > of doing a piece on it and would like to know of references to other > works that refer or react directly to O'Connor's book. Habermas's _Legitimation Crisis_ which came out the same year (1973) both refers to it and was influenced by it. Arguably it's exactly the same argument in a different in a different terminology, system-theoretic rather than economic. O'Connor was a visiting scholar at the Max Planck institute in 1972 and my impression is that there was some cross-fertilization, perhaps through intermediaries like Offe. Michael __ Michael PollakNew York [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Fiscal Crisis of the State
>>I understand there is a new edition of this coming out. >>I'm thinking of doing a piece on it and would like to know >>of references to other works that refer or react directly >>to O'Connor's book. >> >>mbs max, brief 2-3 pp. discussion of o'connor in f.r. hansen, the breakdown of capitalism (routledge, kegan and paul). rb
speaking of the fiscal crisis of the state
Just what they need - a £28m air defence system Cabinet rift over support for BAe sale to one of world's poorest countries David Hencke and Larry Elliott Tuesday December 18, 2001 The Guardian Tony Blair was at the centre of a Cabinet row last night after it emerged Downing Street was backing plans for the sale of a British-made military air traffic control system to Tanzania, one of the world's poorest countries, despite ferocious opposition from the chancellor, Gordon Brown, and the international development secretary Clare Short. Sources at the Treasury and the Department for International Development said Mr Brown and Ms Short would strongly oppose granting an export licence to the defence firm BAe Systems for the £28m project. The contract has been condemned as a waste of money by the World Bank for a country that has just eight military aircraft and a per capita income of £170 a year. Half of Tanzania's population lacks access to clean water and a quarter of children die before their fifth birthday. The deputy prime minister, John Prescott, has now been asked to intervene in the dispute over whether safeguarding 250 BAe jobs on the Isle of Wight should take precedence over Labour's commitment to development goals and an ethical foreign policy. Amid reports that No 10 has been using strong-arm tactics to win over the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, Mr Prescott will chair a Cabinet committee meeting on the issue today. "The whole thing stinks," said one government source last night, adding that a World Bank-commissioned report had concluded Tanzania could buy a new civil air traffic control system for a quarter of the price of the BAe deal. Ms Short and Mr Brown believe Tanzania should use the benefits of a £1.4bn debt relief package announced by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund last month to boost spending on health, education and basic infrastructure rather than on what one source called "unproductive" expenditure. "The prime minister has proudly talked about his Africa initiative," a government adviser said last night. "If he really cares about Africa this is a test case for him." The Cabinet row has been festering since August, but has come to a head since the September 11 attacks, which have led to BAe Systems citing imminent job losses and production cutbacks in an intensification of its lobbying of No 10 for an export licence. Although the previous foreign secretary, Robin Cook, opposed the licence, the present incumbent, Jack Straw is backing the prime minister and the defence secretary Geoff Hoon in their support for the company. Patricia Hewitt, the trade secretary is in neither camp but is said to be anxious not to pick a fight with Tony Blair. The World Bank study is highly critical of the technology of the system, let alone the debt problems it will cause Tanzania. The report says the BAe system is "too expensive and not adequate for civil aviation". It said the system's transmitter has already been superseded and will need an expensive maintenance agreement unless this is underwritten by BAe. It adds that to protect the system during wartime will require "extremely expensive design specifications". BAe said yesterday it had not seen the report and did not want to comment on it. The company said the order would sustain British jobs and added that Tanzania had passed tests on whether it could afford it. The scheme was condemned yesterday by Oxfam, whose policy director, Justin Forsyth said: "The news that the government is thinking about agreeing this deal is deeply disturbing. It exposes a huge flaw in the UK arms export bill, which at the moment puts profits before people. The World Bank have said they won't touch this deal with a bargepole - the government should think very carefully about the impact it could have on the people of Tanzania." The order will cause a parliamentary row today when the Commons new scrutiny committee - composed of the chairs of the defence, foreign affairs, trade and industry and international development committees - meets for the first time. The committee has been banned by Ms Hewitt from seeing details of the contract on the grounds that MPs were recently blocked from "prior scrutiny " under the government's export control bill for fears of leaks. Her move will anger MPs already furious about government backtracking on the openness promised when it was elected. The ex-minister Tony Worthington, who tried to amend the bill to allow scrutiny, said yesterday: "On one hand we are forgiving debt, while on the other we are adding to Tanzania's debt with this order."
Re: RE: Re: Fiscal Crisis of the State
> >It's _John_ Miller and the Review of Radical Political _Economics_. John has >published stuff on O'Connor elsewhere. thanks for the corrections, jim. if you do have exact cites for john miller's work i would appreciate it. thanks, rb
RE: Re: Fiscal Crisis of the State
thanks. mbs > > 1. a long footnote reference in Mario Cogoy, International Journal of > Political Economy, vol 17, no 2 (1987) see last article. . . .
RE: Re: Fiscal Crisis of the State
> i believe that there was an article by james miller in review of radical political economy analyzing different marxist theories of the state.< It's _John_ Miller and the Review of Radical Political _Economics_. John has published stuff on O'Connor elsewhere. >bob jessop makes brief reference to o connor in his state: putting capitalist states in their place. Jessop attempts to replace o'connor's dual categorization of state expenditures in terms either 'accumulation' or 'legitimation' with the couplet 'accumulation strategy' and 'hegemonic project'.< Sam Bowles & Herb Gintis, in their SCHOOLING IN CAPITALIST AMERICA, write of the contradiction between accumulation and the reproduction of social relations with direct reference to O'Connor (pp. 231f). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Fiscal Crisis of the State
>I understand there is a new edition of this coming out. >I'm thinking of doing a piece on it and would like to know >of references to other works that refer or react directly >to O'Connor's book. > >mbs 1. a long footnote reference in Mario Cogoy, International Journal of Political Economy, vol 17, no 2 (1987) see last article. 2. i believe that there was an article by james miller in review of radical political economy analyzing different marxist theories of the state. 3. i believe o connor has had a close relationship with the german state theorist claus offe, so the latter may have some interesting discussion somewhere of o connor 4. bob jessop makes brief reference to o connor in his state: putting capitalist states in their place. Jessop attempts to replace o'connor's dual categorization of state expenditures in terms either 'accumulation' or 'legitimation' with the couplet 'accumulation strategy' and 'hegemonic project'. 5. best of all is o'connor's own attempt to locate his state theory vis a vis other theories in The Meaning of Crisis: A Theoretical Introduction, pp. 99ff. criticizing mattick, o connor argues that state expenditures are socialized forms of capital costs. by this i think he means that the state pools surplus value from individual capitalists and then invests it on their behalf in the form of public forms of constant capital the value of which is thus somehow transferred to the commodity output, so that capitalists recover the surplus value that had been extorted by the state. but several problems: a. if the state borrows, it owes interest. where does the money to back the interest come from? b. how is the value of roads and harbors transferred by workers to commodities that are owned by private capitalists? c. what happens in the case of the state building useless infrastructure (like in Japan today) or arms? How are these costs transferred to the commodity output? Rakesh
Fiscal Crisis of the State
I understand there is a new edition of this coming out. I'm thinking of doing a piece on it and would like to know of references to other works that refer or react directly to O'Connor's book. mbs
