Re: [OPE] long waves

> What would one say 86 years later? Maybe that to be convincing as a
> 'necessary' explanation of uneven development across time and space, the
> schema should be enlarged to incorporate a major uptick in accumulation
> (late 1940s-1960s) mainly because of massive devalorisation of
> overaccumulated capital in the prior period (1929-45 especially 1939-45);
> but such an 'energetic upswing' can come to a fairly abrupt halt in the
> core sites of overaccumulation (1970s) and then suffer through thirty-five
> years of *displaced* crisis; i.e., overaccumulation tensions that were
> shifted (to the Third World, the Sunbelt, gentrified zones, etc) and
> stalled (over time via credit), to the point where large-scale
> devalorisation is again on the agenda (2008-09)? Can a long-wave
> perspective be broadened to take account of these stylised facts? Is
> 'overaccumulation-devalorisation' the best framework for thinking this
> dynamic through?

Hi Patrick:

Mandel tried this decades ago (best presented in his 1972 work _Late
Capitalism_).
Indeed, you can see the idea of what you call a 'displaced crisis' in his
writings in the 1960s.
(Of course, he was not alone ....). So, yes, I don't think it would be
difficult to broaden a
long-wave perspective to take into account your 'stylized facts'. But, that
wouldn't answer
the criticisms which have been made of the various long-wave models (of
which there are
many variations, especially as it relates to causality).

In solidarity, Jerry

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Mon Oct 19 10:43:32 2009