From: "Dave Bedggood" <dr.bedggood-AT-auckland.ac.nz>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 13:12:40 +0000
Subject: Re: M-TH: Mandel's critique of Mattick


Jurriaan writes:

> Dave quotes Mattick:
> 
> > "Although it first appears in the process of circulation, the real 
> > crisis cannot be understood as a problem of circulation or of 
> > realisation, but only as a disruption of the process of reproduction 
> > as a whole, which is constituted by production and circulation 
> > together. And as the process of reproduction depends on the 
> > accumulation of capital, and therefore on the mass of surplus value 
> > that makes accumulation possible, it is within the sphere of 
> > production that the decisive factors (though not the only factors) of 
> > the passage from the possibility of crisis to an actual crisis are to 
> > be found". (59-60).
> > 
> I don't think Mandel would disagree with this passage.

So the sphere of production is where the decisive factors which cause 
actual crisis are to be found?

> > 
> > The point of this explanation is to prove that the necessity of 
> > crisis follows from interruptions to accumulation initiated at the level
> of 
> > production but threatening the overall reproduction of capital. This 
> > is the proof Marx's needs to show that capitalism is a transitory 
> > mode of production. Marx does not make this explanation dependent upon
> the 
> > market demand because, despite Mandel,  it is not. 
> 
> Mandel doesn't make it dependent on market demand either, so Dave is
> attacking the wrong person.

Mandel says that production is the main cause and that market demand 
is not.

> The necessity for
> > crisis occurs given  the assumption that there is demand for commodities
> > at their "normal price"  This does not mean Marx [or Mattick]
> > neglects to include other "causes" of crisis, but rather that these 
> > "other" causes are derived from the fundamental cause.  This is 
> > clearly true of  the "final cause" of underconsumption of commodities. 
> 
> As you will be able to see from Mandel's text, he also rejects
> underconsumptionist explanations of crises.  

OK but it is still necessary to explain underconsumption as the 
"ultimate" as opposed to the first cause of crises.

> > So logically and historically the TRPF causes and explains the
> > operation of all other causes of crisis. 
> 
> Mandel would say it doesn't, although it is one of the key mechanisms
> involved.

This is my problem. Given production, not market, overproduction of 
capital, not underconsumption of commodities, if the TRPF is not the 
main cause of crisis at the level of production, what is?

>  What Marx is 
> > talking about here is overproduction of capital resulting from a rise in
> its 
> > costs, not its falling price. 
> 
> No, Marx does not subscribe to a cost-of-capital theory of crisis, but an
> overaccumulation (excess capital) theory of crisis, which Mandel points out
> (also by looking at the empirical facts) goes hand in hand with the
> overproduction of commodities.

I would say that this doesnt help much. Surely the overproduction of 
capital results from underaccumulation [as Mattick quotes Marx, 
accumulation is the INDEPENDENT  variable here - that is whether 
capital actually accumulates or not]. There cannot be 
over-accumulation of capital since accumulation means new  
surplus-value added to existing capital to make more 
capital. Overproduction of capital by contrast refers to capital which 
cannot add sufficient value because of insufficient S relative to rising 
0 and relatively falling V.
 The second point is that while 
overproduction of capital may go "hand in hand" with overproduction 
of commodities, there is a causal link from the independent variable 
underaccumulation, to the dependent variable, overproduction of 
commodities. 

> > But Marx is holding market price constant so as not to complicate the 
> > procedure  of an "independent"  understanding the main cause of rising
> > production costs,  the TRPF. 
> 
> That may be so, but that is not acceptable in explaining real crises.  And
> Marx does note the overproduction of commodities in real crises.

Except that unless you have the correct explanation of a "real" 
crisis you are in a weak position to advance a revolutionary programme that 
exposes and defeats competing explanations such as we currently see 
being wheeled out to "explain" the Asia crisis. The point it that we 
have to make it logically necessary, not just empirically observable, 
that overproduction of commodities is not the "real" cause of crisis, 
but underaccumulation is.

> What Mandel does is analyse the causal chain of events (see pp. 48-51 in
> the Introduction to Capital Volume 3).  The "main cause" of the crisis is
> that part of the newly accumulated capital can no longer be invested at the
> average rate of profit, or is even not invested at all, pushed towards
> speculation, etc.  This is where Mattick equivocates.

This seems to be an acknowledgement that the TRPF causes a decline in 
investment. If this is  not the "main cause" what is?  Is  it that 
Mandel sees the decline in the rate of profit as the result of 
contingent events, like many others, where the TRPF is offset by the 
counter-tendencies, and whether of not profits fall depends on which 
tendency/counter-tendency wins? 

> Mandel in his writings on crises distinguishes very clearly between the
> "triggering factors" or "detonators" of crises, mediating links, and their
> deeper causes. 
> 
That is my worry.  How "deep" is "deep"? If production is decisive, 
underaccumulation due to falling profits, how deep is the 
cause of falling profits? If the TRPF is not the exclusive "main" 
cause, are we left with a contingency theory of crisis in which 
"deeper" causes are not "necessary" but just "potential". 

 > In terms of Mandel's last point about overcoming the crisis. It is 
> > not sufficient to prove that capitalism cannot work as employers and 
> > reformists conceive it to bring about its downfall.  It is true that
> crises
> > today are more difficult to resolve even temporarily by capitalism. 
> > This is becasue restoring the rate of profit comes up
> > against the "ultimate" cause, itself the result of many previous crises
> and
> > counter-crises, wars and depressions. That's why Marx called the 
> > "ultimate" cause of crisis, "ultimate"  because it posed capitalism's 
> > historical limits.
> > 
> Well all Mandel tries to do, is go beyond talking about ultimate causes and
> look at the dynamics involved in real crises.  
>
Except that levels of analysis have become totally confused here. My 
worry is that Mandel's "main" cause is contingent and not necessary, 
and that by "ultimate" you are referring here to underconsumption, 
as abstract and not real. To employ the method of abstraction does not 
mean that "fundamental" [meaning primary, first, main, if not mono] or 
"ultimate" [as in last, final, both logically and historically] are not REAL. 
I don't think  abstraction is just "talk". Rather the identification of 
necessary causes which do not depend upon empirical proof as to their 
validity, but rather their ability to explain the concrete phenomena of 
capitalist development in such a way as the working class can 
actively intervene to transform the social relations that make such 
concrete phenomena necessary. 

Dave.




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