Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 01:18:25 +0000
From: James Heartfield <James-AT-heartfield.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Mandel's critique of Mattick


In message <199801121229.HAA37732-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU>,
jurriaan bendien <Jbendien-AT-globalxs.nl> writes
>Personally,
>I think we ought to distinguish between the following issues:
>
>1.  What makes crises possible ? 

Money, according to Marx, as it separates sale and purchase. See Cap.
Vol1, Chapter 3.

>2.  What makes crises inevitable ?

Overaccumulation, failure to create sufficient surplus to fund new round
of investment.

>3.  What makes crises necessary ?

Not sure how that differs from the above.

>4.  Why are crises periodically recurrent ?

Because each crisis is its own forcible resolution, as constant capital
is written off and labour power forced beneath its value.

>6.  What type of analysis is appropriate to explain a. the historic crisis
>of the capitalist system, b.  Kondratieff-type fluctuations, c. the
>ordinary business cycle ?

I tend to think that b. and c. are mystifications. 'Business cycles' is
a category that covers a multitude of sins, and I am not sure that there
are 'Kondratiev cycles'.

Fraternally
-- 
James Heartfield


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