From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Wed Oct 19 2005 - 11:43:06 EDT
> I do not mean to minimize the importance of capitalism's tendency toward > crises. I have devoted a lot of years to Marx's crisis theory, especially > the falling rate of profit as applied to the US economy. However, I have > come to realize that the three volumes of Capital are generally at a > higher level of abstraction than crises. "Crises and the world market" > was the 6th book in Marx's original 6-book plan. Capital was only the > first book. Capital provides the basis for a more concrete theory of > crises, but such a theory is not presented in the three volumes. Before > concrete crises can be analyzed, the production and distribution of > surplus-value must be explained. These fundamental questions are > explained in Capital on the basis of the assumption that capitalism is > "functioning normally", i.e. that S = D and price = value or = price of > production. Fred: I agree with you on this point, but I wonder: after you came to this realization, how did that impact and/or modify your understanding of the more concrete mechanics of crisis? I'm genuinely curious about that. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 24 2005 - 00:00:04 EDT