Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In this paper I intend to contrast the ‘falling rate of profit ’ crisis theories of the 1970s with the ‘underconsumptionism ’ of the orthodox Marxist tradition. The central argument is that in rejecting traditional underconsumptionist theories of crisis contemporary Marxism has thrown the baby out with the bathwater, with unfortunate theoretical and political consequences. A more adequate critique of traditional underconsumptionism leads not to the falling rate of profit, but to a dis-proportionality theory of crisis, which follows the traditional theory in seeing crises not as epochal events but as expressions of the permanent tendencies of capitalist accumulation. The background to the paper is my recent book, Keynesianism, Monetarism and the Crisis of the State (Clarke, 1988a), in which analysed the development of capitalism on the basis of a version of the theory of overaccumulation and crisis which is proposed here. However in the book this theory is developed in relation to the historical analysis, without reference to either traditional or contemporary debates. The purpose of this paper is to draw out the theoretical significance of the
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Simon Clarke (1990) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: