Date: Thu, 30 Nov 1995 06:47:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Spoon Collective <spoons-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU>
Subject: Marx's limit cycles (fwd)



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 30 Nov 95 03:02:06 EST
From: Chris, London <100423.2040-AT-compuserve.com>
To: marxism list <marxism-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU>
Cc: John Ernst <ernst-AT-pipeline.com>, Steve Keen <Steve.Keen-AT-unsw.edu.au>
Subject: Marx's limit cycles

The Nature of Marx's Limit Cycles.

With John's h*lp I have posed the question of
whether there are inconsistencies between three quotations from
Marx describing capitalist limit cycles   ---

and if they are not inconsistent, does one of them have
explanatory pre-eminence.

John replied on Tuesday 28th that he considered the passages
are not mutually exclusive. (see below for this and the quotes)

I need then  to clarify what I was looking for. One of my
desires is to lure Steve into this debate, not in an unguarded way,
but perhaps with his guard lowered, because I think that what the capitalist
system comes up against repeatedly in its cycles, is a somewhat
elastic sort of ceiling of the total exchange value of the society.

At any rate, as I am indebted to Steve for the phrase "limit cycle"
applied to the quotation from Marx below from Chapter 25, vol 1,
I would like him to say what he means by limit.

For my part I was partly groping around between the three
quoted passages, wondering if we can say one function above all,
eg exchange value, money, labour power, fixed capital etc, is the
hegemonic most determining feature dictating the fluctuating pattern.

I was half wondering if instead we should look at what is the principal
contradiction, or the principal aspect of the contradiction.

But perhaps all of this is wrong. If the cycle is the result of interactive
curvilinear (non-linear) mathematical processes a\ la chaos theory,
then there could be a fluctuating pattern, right enough, but it might
not be meaningful to ask if one factor is the most determining one,
because it is an interaction.

I am hopeful of a further round from you, John on this one, as well
as if possible drawing a comment from Steve.

Jumpers in welcome too.

Regards,

Chris, London

____________________________________________________________


From: "John R. Ernst" <ernst-AT-pipeline.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 02:20:05 -0500

Chris,

I do not think we have to make a choice.  As you point out,
the statements are not "mutually exclusive."


1.  Statement 1 simply states "...furnishes a material basis for
     the periodic crises."

2.  Statement 2 describes how crises are overcome.


3.  Statement 3 presents us with the possibility that wages may
     rise just before a crisis occurs. (Note that this quote is
     taken from Ch 25, Sec. 1 of Bk I, where no change in
     technology is assumed.)


John




On 27 Nov 95 "Chris, London" <100423.2040-AT-compuserve.com> said:


>There appear to be three different but not mutually exclusive
>statements by Marx on the fundamental nature of cycles, and the
>*principal* reason for their periodicity.
>
>Which should we prefer?
>
>
>
>
>John said:
>
>> Do you accept Marx's idea that the turnover of fixed capital
>>   would form the material basis for a theory of crisis?
>>
>Chris said:
>
>>- Could you give a reference by chapter and para number, for this
>>idea?
>
>See CAPITAL, BK II, Ch. 9, Para 11
>
>
>
>Comment by Chris:
>-----------------
>
>1.
>xx
>
>Thanks for the convenient reference by
>chapter and para, which helps regardless of edition.
>
>"One may assume that in the essential branches of modern industry
>this life-cycle now averages ten years. However we are not concerned
>here with the exact figure. This much is evident: the cycle of
>interconnected turnovers embracing a number of years, in which capital is

>held fast by its fixed constituent part, furnishes a material basis
>for the periodic crises..."
>
>
>2.
>xx
>
>
>The argument presented in this passage is consistent with that
>in the Communist Manifesto but not identical:
>
>"How does the bourgeoisie get over these crises?  On the one
>hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces;
>on the other ..."
>
>Here the statement could imply that the discounting of vast
>quantities of unsold stock in a slump, is an essential part of
>the process of resolution of the crisis, as well as the discounting
>of large areas of uncompetitive fixed capital.
>
>3.
>xx
>
>Capital Vol 1 Ch xxv "The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation", para 6:

>
>"... a rise in the price of labour resulting from the accumulation of
>capital implies the following alternative:
>Either the price of labour keeps on rising, because its rise does not
>interfere with the progress of accumulation. ...
>Or, on the other hand, accumulation slackens in consequence of the rise
>in the price of labour, because the stimulus of gain is blunted. The rate
of
>accumulation lessens; but with its lessening, the primary cause of that
>lessening vanishes, i.e. the disproportion between capital and exploitable

>labour-power. The mechanism of the process of capitalist production
removes
>the very obstacles that it temporarily creates. The price of labour falls

>again to a level corresponding with the needs of the self-expansion of
>capital, whether the level be below, the same as, or above the one which
>was normal before the rise of wages took place. We see thus: In the first

>case it is not the diminished rate either of the absolute,  or of the
>proportional, increase in labour-power, or the labouring population,
>which causes capital to be in excess, but conversely the excess of
>capital that makes exploitable labour-power insufficient. In the second
>case, it is not the increased rate either of the absolute, or of the
>proportional, increase in labour-power, or labouring population, that
makes
>capital insufficient; but, conversely, the relative diminution of capital

>that causes the exploitable labour-power, or rather its price, to be in
>excess. It is these absolute movements of the accumulation of capital
which
>are reflected as relative movements of the mass of exploitable labour
power,
>and therefore seem produced by the latter's own independent movement.
>To put it mathematically: the rate of accumulation is the independent,
>not the dependent, variable; the rate of wages, the dependent, not the
>independent, variable."
>
>This passage, much quoted by Steve Keen, appears to me to say that the
>principal cause of crises is the limitation of the total available capital

>in the form of both variable and constant capital, because there is a
limit
>to the total exchange value of the society, and that the limiting factor
>that tips the cycle into crisis is a slowing of the rate of accumulation
of
>capital.
>
>
>Are these three somewhat different Marxist explanations of the limit cycle

>and its repeated resolution, incompatible, and if not, which is the most
>authoritative version?
>
>Chris, London





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

     ------------------