From: "jurriaan bendien" <Jbendien-AT-globalxs.nl>
Subject: Re: M-TH: MANDEL, DOUG AND BODDHI
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 15:54:13 +0100


Rakesh writes:

> however, what Mandel emphasizes is this anticipated lowered profit rate,
> which indeed serves as a disincentive to accumulation, is the result of
the
> current decline in commodity prices, the cause of which is *commodity*
> overproduction--the explanation of which is in turn left opaque by
Mandel.
> Suffice to say, Mandel implicitly coverges here completely with left
> Keynesianism.

Mandel does refer to saturated markets, but I do not think Mandel is saying
the lower profit rate results from commodity price declines caused by
commodity overproduction, and certainly not in late capitalism (where
inflation becomes a major factor sustaining prices and demand). Mandel does
indeed refer to the falling rate of profit, but says the story does not end
there.

>   Note that in Grossmann's model capitalists would be willing to accept a
> progressively lower rate of profit for some time as accumulation
> nonetheless enables the production of a greater mass of surplus value and
> out of that greater mass greater absolute consumption for the capitalist
> class as well, even though a progressively greater percentage of surplus
> value is being accumulated as per the requirements of the model, viz.
each
> period at a higher capital outlay in the form of a higher organic
> composition as well.
> 
Well, quite.  A rate of profit of 7% instead of 10% is preferable to a rate
of profit of 0%.

> Jurriaann would know, but I believe that Shaikh makes a similar argument
> about an *absolute* decline in the *mass* of surplus value over the
course
> of competition-ridden accumulation, though without any reference to
> Grossmann's or Mattick's work.  

Yes, Shaikh does make that argument, in his article in Wallerstein &
Mandel, ed.,  New Findings in Long Waves Research.  The argument there
concerns the turning point from boom to slump at the end of the last long
wave of growth in the mid-1970s, and the rate vs mass of surplus-value.  I
believe Shaikh is correct and Mandel is faulty there.

 In no way does Mattick urge the working class to
> accept a higher rate of exploitation during crisis but to take advantage
of
> crisis conditions to create a cooperative society.
> 
I agree.  That is merely an implication which could be drawn from his
somewhat convoluted argument.

Regards

Jurriaan.


     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---