DOCSLIB.ORG

On the Mechanism of the Extraction and Appropriation of Surplus Value in the Soviet Society

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

On the Mechanism of the Extraction and Appropriation of Surplus Value in the Soviet Society Fatos Nano Candidate of Economic Sciences Taken from no. 3 of the Albanian edition of the magazine “Socio- Political Studies” Nearly three decades have passed from the time the Khrushchevites usurped power in the Soviet Union and launched an attack on a broad front against the victories of socialism achieved under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin. The counter-revolutionary overthrow they brought about in the superstructure, the ideology and policy of the Soviet state could not fail to bring about, as it did, the disintegration of the economic base of the Soviet society. It opened the road to far-reaching processes which led to the overthrow of socialist relations of production and the restoration of capitalism in all fields. As the 8th Congress of the PLA pointed out, the strategy of Khrushchevite revisionism had “...as its main task to liquidate the dictatorship of the proletariat, to undermine the foundations of socialist society, to set the Soviet Union on the capitalist road and turn it into an imperialist superpower. Now we can all see that great counter-revolutionary transformation which has occurred in the Soviet Union.”* * Enver Hoxha. Report to the 8th Congress of the PLA, “8 Nentori” Publishing House, Tirana 1981, p. 239, Eng. ed. 1. The Khrushchevite-Brezhnevite reforms and the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet society The new revisionist bourgeoisie worked intensively for reorganizing the Soviet economy on capitalist bases, building and setting in motion a specific mechanism for the extraction and appropriation of surplus value, for the capitalist plunder and exploitation of the Soviet working people. This mechanism of exploitation of man by man assumed its form and content in the Soviet society in the process of the implementation of capitalist reforms at the base and superstructure, which they began with great vigour after the death of Stalin. The essential thing in these far-reaching capitalist transformations in the Soviet society was the radical change of the relations of production, the introduction of such a system of organization and management of the economy aimed only at ensuring maximum profit at all costs, vesting the state with the prerogatives of a collective capitalist body and establishing the rule of state monopoly capitalism in every field and to proportions unprecedented in the history of imperialism. At the turn of 1970 the capitalist reforms of the Soviet economy were operating in 90 per cent of the industrial enterprises which supplied 92 per cent of the total industrial production. In transport these reforms were accomplished in 1968 and in building they were introduced on a large scale over the period 1969-1970. Whereas the state agricultural sector was reformed at slower rates. In 1970 only one third of the “state farms”* were involved in this process. * Pravda. June 27. 1969, January, 25. 1970. and February 4, 1971. Through these reforms the Khrushchevites delivered a blow first at the fundamental theses of the Marxist- Leninist theory on commodity production and the operation of the law of value in socialism. The socialist production of goods was identified in theory and practice with the capitalist commodity production and, on this basis, the whole economic mechanism was reformed. Through the intermediary of the state, the means of production and the management of the economy were concentrated in the hands of the new bourgeoisie. Previous laws arid, practices with a socialist content were replaced with new ones, which gave the state and party bureaucracy complete freedom to express and achieve its capitalist interests and aspirations without impediment. Directors of various enterprises and institutions were vested with broad rights and powers to direct and manipulate production and distribution, to hire and fire workers, to divide up profits, and other competences which were used to ensure and broaden the privileges and increase the incomes of the castes in power at the expense of the working masses. Profit was placed at the foundation of all economic activity, as a regulator of production and distribution, as “the supreme and general criterion which characterizes the activity of the enterprise in the highest degree.”* The centralized economy was made to coexist with the market economy and the offer-demand capitalist mechanism was made, to a considerable degree, the regulator of the production – consumption relations. The state gradually lost control of the amount of work and consumption – the two main levers of socialist economy, and the Soviet economy found itself caught in the grip of contradictions between its bureaucratic centralism of the monopoly type and widespread economic liberalism at the base. Under the slogan of the “operational independence of enterprises” and “the elimination of the intermediate administrative links”, direct capitalist links were established between the units of production on the basis of the market mechanism. The transition to the buying and selling of the means of production, like any other commodity, turned them into fundamental capital, while the system of self-coverage and self- financing, the so-called complete self-supporting system based on narrow capitalist profitability in every link of the economy, was placed at the foundation of the new capitalist economic mechanism. Centralized state financing of capital investments and means of circulation was limited and gradually covered by means of decentralized sources and bank credits. The planned management of the economy has left its place in practice to the free operation of the economic laws and categories of the capitalist mode of production. * Pravda, November 21. 1965. The Khrushchevite economic reforms began with the buying and selling of the means of production as commodities. “With us”, the Soviet revisionist press wrote at the height of these reforms, “the equipment of enterprises with means of production is dealt with and done in the form of buying and selling.”* In 1971 the buying and selling of the means of production accounted for two thirds of all the goods turnover in the Soviet Union and, in 1974, 70 per cent of them were bought or sold by direct contracts between producer and consumer enterprises.** * Ekonomicheskaya Gazeta, no. 43, 1965. ** Ekonomicheskiye Nauki, no. 11, 1971 and Voprosi Ekonomikii, no. 4. 1974. Under the new Constitution, which is typical of those of state capitalist enterprises, which came into effect on October 4, 1965, “The enterprise exercises the right to possession of the property under its operational control”, “the director of the enterprise may act on its behalf, dispose of the property and funds of the enterprise, employ and dismiss the staff”.* * Ekonomicheskaya Gazeta, no. 43, 1965. The relations that were established in the Soviet society between the state and the capitalist managers of state or collective property objects, as juridical persons, are of the same type as the relations existing in monopoly capitalism of today between the private or collective owners of capital and the managers who administer the capitalist enterprise without being its owners. In the present-day Soviet Union the social- imperialist state has the rights of the monopoly owner of the main means of production, the land, the mines, the water resources, building lots, etc., realized in the form of rents, interest rates and taxation on productive funds which are leased to different groups of the bourgeoisie of city and countryside. These monopoly rights are materialized in the form of rent for fundamental capital, with each state enterprise contributing to the state budget an average of 15 per cent of the value of its production funds; in the rents and taxes on the collective forms of economy (collective farms, building construction cooperatives, communal services, etc.), or on the private forms of income from capitalist enterprises in agriculture (personal plots of the cooperative members), trade (the black market), services and crafts (the pursuit of professions for private profit), etc. In order to express these new capitalist relations between the state, the organizations and citizens in the period October 1, 1966 – July 1, 1967, in terms of value the general reform of wholesale prices was carried out, which brought about the average increase by 8 per cent of wholesale prices for all industry, which, in turn, was followed by new general price rises in 1969, 1974 and 1979.* At the foundation of the new system were placed “fluctuating prices” intended to achieve an “equilibrium between offer and demand” as “very important and effective means of regulating the social processes of reproduction”.** Thus, the processes of redistribution of the national income in the Soviet economy were placed on capitalist bases. Besides the fact that prices are fixed from above, broad margins are allowed to the state monopoly unions in the fluctuation of prices, which are “motivated” by “increases due to new products of higher quality and greater effectiveness”.*** So, high-priced goods, especially “new” products and assortments which, in fact, are the same as the “old” ones with slight modifications, continue to pour onto the capitalist Soviet market. The final aim of all this is to guarantee higher norms of profit. The Soviet press admits that “there is the danger that prices may continue to go up constantly, as the various economic units try to increase their income (profits) in the easiest
Recommended publications
  • 150 Years Karl Marx's “Capital”

    150 Years Karl Marx's “Capital”

    150 years Karl Marx’s “Capital” Reflections for the 21st century INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE 14-15.1.2017 | Olympia Hall – Garden of Zappio Athens - Greece 2 150 YEARS KARL MARX’S “CAPITAL” 150 ΧΡΌΝΙΑ ΚΑΡΛ ΜΑΡΞ ΤΟ ΚΕΦΆΛ150 YEARSΆΙΟ KARL MARX’S “CAPITAL” 150 years Karl Marx’s “Capital” Reflections for the 21st century INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE 14-15.1.2017 Olympia Hall – Garden of Zappio Athens - Greece CONTENTS PREFACE . 9 INTRODUCTION ◊ John Milios . 11 New Readings and New Texts: Marx’s Capital after MEGA2* Michael Heinrich. 15 Old readings ◊ New readings since the 1960s ◊ New insights from new texts in MEGA2 ◊ Not one, but two critical projects since 1857 ◊ The disparate character of Capital manuscripts ◊ Value theory ◊ The law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall ◊ Crisis theory after 1865 Comments: Dimitris Papafotiou . 26 Money in Marx: from value-form analysis to an understanding of modern capitalism Spyros Lapatsioras and Dimitris P. Sotiropoulos . 35 1. Money, commodity, and value-form ◊ 2. Credit-money: money as a means of payment ◊ 3. The form of capital ◊ 4. Money as capital ◊ 5. Derivatives ◊ 6. Epilogue: the dynamics of contemporary capitalism ◊ References Comments: Christos Vallianos . 55 If you don’t understand the Second Product, you understand nothing about Capital Michael A. Lebowitz . 63 Capitalism as an organic system ◊ The fearful symmetry of hats and men ◊ Marx’s plan ◊ The missing second product Comments: George Economakis . 82 1. The ‘second product’ in Capital ◊ 2. Wages in Capital and the “symmetry” of hats and men ◊ 3. An initial critical commentary ◊ 4. The issue of the real wage as a set amount of means of subsistence in Marx and the ‘Ricardian Default’ ◊ 5.
  • Values and Value Transfers: a Comment on Itoh

    Values and Value Transfers: a Comment on Itoh

    : VALUES AND VALUE TRANSFERS: A COMMENT ON ITOH Anwar Shaikh Itoh's essay provides a valuable retrospective on recent debates concerning the Marxian theory of value. He points out that the economic crisis enveloping both cap­ itaJist and socialist worlds from the 1970s onward challenged economists to rethink and refine their basic approaches. Among other things. this sparked a resurgence of interest in fundamental issues such as Ihe theory of value. Thus, what appears as an abstraCt discussion is actually rooted in historical events, with political and economic implications for the current period (above. 53-54), Itoh also emphasizes the importance of Sraffa's work in revitalizing the Marxist discussion ofva1ue theory. Sraffa's pathbreak.ing work provided a new platform for a critique of neoclassical economics, even as it "rchabilitatcd the objcctive theory of value" which is characteristic of me classical and Marxian traditions. But his narrow focus and elliptical style left open the question of the relation between his approach and that of more general economic framewocks. Not swprisingiy, many of his followers set out to incol']X)rate his unconventional approach into a more orthodox "neo-Ricardian" framework, in which the emphasis was on mathematical and functional analyses of CQuilibriwn prices. Inevitably, this gave rise to a divergence between nco-Ricardian and Marxian writers (54--60). Two issues are highlighted by Itoh: the problems which arise with Marx's procedure for linking labor value and money price magnitudes (the transfonnatiOil problem), problems which appear LO undermine the Marxian claim that value magnitudes arc the foundation of price magnitudes; and the claim that value categories are in any case redundant, since market prices actually gravitate around prices of production, not labor values (60).
  • Department of Economics

    Department of Economics

    DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS Working Paper Problematizing the Global Economy: Financialization and the “Feudalization” of Capital Rajesh Bhattacharya Ian Seda-Irizarry Paper No. 01, Spring 2014, revised 1 Problematizing the Global Economy: Financialization and the “Feudalization” of Capital Rajesh Bhattacharya1 and Ian J. Seda-Irizarry2 Abstract In this essay we note that contemporary debates on financialization revolve around a purported “separation” between finance and production, implying that financial profits expand at the cost of production of real value. Within the literature on financialization, we primarily focus on those contributions that connect financialization to global value-chains, production of knowledge- capital and the significance of rent (ground rent, in Marx’s language) in driving financial strategies of firms, processes that are part of what we call, following others, the feudalization of capital. Building on the contributions of Stephen A. Resnick and Richard D. Wolff, we problematize the categories of capital and capitalism to uncover the capitalocentric premises of these contributions. In our understanding, any discussion of the global economy must recognize a) the simultaneous expansion of capitalist economic space and a non-capitalist “outside” of capital and b) the processes of exclusion (dispossession without proletarianization) in sustaining the capital/non-capital complex. In doing so, one must recognize the significance of both traditional forms of primitive accumulation as well as instances of “new enclosures” in securing rent for dominant financialized firms. Investment in knowledge-capital appears as an increasingly dominant instrument of extraction of rent from both capitalist and non-capitalist producers within a transformed economic geography. In our understanding, such a Marxian analysis renders the separation problem an untenable proposition.
  • Relations of Production and Modes of Surplus Extraction in India: an Aggregate Study

    Relations of Production and Modes of Surplus Extraction in India: an Aggregate Study

    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Economics Department Working Paper Series Economics 2009 Relations of Production and Modes of Surplus Extraction in India: An Aggregate Study Amit Basole University of Massachusetts - Amherst Deepankar Basu University of Massachusetts - Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/econ_workingpaper Part of the Economics Commons Recommended Citation Basole, Amit and Basu, Deepankar, "Relations of Production and Modes of Surplus Extraction in India: An Aggregate Study" (2009). Economics Department Working Paper Series. 4. https://doi.org/10.7275/1066720 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Economics at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Economics Department Working Paper Series by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS Working Paper RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION AND MODES OF SURPLUS EXTRACTION IN INDIA: AN AGGREGATE STUDY by Amit Basole and Deepankar Basu Working Paper 2009-12 UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION AND MODES OF SURPLUS EXTRACTION IN INDIA: AN AGGREGATE STUDY (September, 12, 2009) Amit Basole! and Deepankar Basu$ Abstract: This paper uses aggregate-level data, as well as case-stud- ies, to trace the evolution of some key structural features of the Indian economy, relating both to the agricultural and the informal industrial sector. These aggregate trends are used to infer: (a) the dominant re- lations of production under which the vast majority of the Indian work- ing people labour, and (b) the predominant ways in which the surplus labour of the direct producers is appropriated by the dominant classes.
  • Introduction: a Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx's Theory

    Introduction: a Macro-Monetary Interpretation of Marx's Theory

    Chapter 1: Introduction A “macro-monetary” interpretation of Marx’s theory Capitalists are like hostile brothers who divide among themselves the loot of other people’s labor. (MECW.31: 264 [TSV.II: 29]) Before production began, we had a capital of ₤500. After production is over, we have the capital of ₤500 plus a value increment of ₤100. (C.III: 124) The exact development of the concept of capital [is] necessary, since it [is] the fundamental concept of modern economics, just as capital itself, whose abstract, reflected image [is] its concept …, [is] the foundation of bourgeois society. (G: 331; brackets in the translation; emphasis added) This chapter introduces the main characteristics of my “macro-monetary” interpretation of the logical method of Marx’s theory that are especially crucial for an understanding of Marx’s theory of prices of production and the “transformation problem”. Those characteristics are: (1) the total surplus-value in the economy as a whole is determined logically prior to its division into individual parts (average industrial profit, commercial profit, interest, and rent); in other words, the production of surplus-value is theorized prior to the distribution of surplus-value; (2) the subject of the theory throughout is a “single system” – the actual capitalist economy – which is first analyzed at the macro level of the total economy and is then subsequently analyzed at the micro level of individual industries; (3) the logical framework of Marx’s theory of the production and distribution of surplus-value is the
  • The Role of Production Relations in Marx's Theory of Capitalist Exploitation

    The Role of Production Relations in Marx's Theory of Capitalist Exploitation

    The Role of Production Relations in Marx’s Theory of Capitalist Exploitation* Gilbert L. Skillman Department of Economics Wesleyan University Middletown, CT 06459 E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT It is well known that Karl Marx explained profit in capitalist economies as arising primarily from the exploitation of productive labor. Less generally understood is Marx’s theory as to the economic logic of capitalist exploitation, in particular the sense in and degree to which the latter depends on direct capitalist control of production, which Marx termed the subsumption of labor under capital. In Volume I of Capital, Marx focuses exclusively on the purchase and consumption of labor power under capitalist production as the basis of capitalist exploitation, on the grounds that the appropriation of surplus value must be explained on the condition that commodities exchange at their respective values. However, this stipulation manifestly does not follow from the arguments Marx presents, and its apparent implications clash with Marx’s own historical account of exploitation via circuits of capital which did not in fact depend on the subsumption of labor under capital. This paper argues that the logic of capitalist exploitation is instead best understood in terms of Marx’s historical-materialist theory of profit, which depicts capitalist production relations as a historically contingent strategic response to evolving conditions of class conflict over the creation and distribution of surplus product. This account, constructed from Marx’s published and unpublished economic writing, establishes a consistent thread of argumentation linking the Grundrisse with the analysis featured in Volume I of Capital a decade later.
  • Karl Marx's Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique

    Karl Marx's Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique

    8 Rethinking Capital in light of the Grundrisse1 Moishe Postone Critical social theory and the contemporary world Critical social theory has not kept pace with the far-reaching global transforma- tions of the past three decades. The intense and fruitful revival of Marxian thought and scholarship in the 1960s and early 1970s was followed by a very strong turn away from Marxism on the part of many theorists. The intellectual field became dominated by postmodernist and poststructuralist approaches that appeared plausible to many as critiques of Marxism. It has become increasingly evident, however, that such approaches do not adequately grasp the current epoch; they fail to elucidate the basic historical changes that have reconfigured the world in recent decades. Even major thinkers such as Habermas, Foucault and Derrida now appear as theorists of a fading historical configuration – declin- ing Fordism; their critical approaches illuminate less and less of the contempor- ary social universe. One obvious weakness of these post-Marxist discourses has been the absence of serious political–economic considerations, an absence that has become glaring in the face of processes of globalization. At the same time, it is clear that, however important integrating political–economic considerations into crit- ical theories of the present might be, there can be no plausible return to tradi- tional Marxism. That traditional critical framework failed to provide the basis for an adequate historical analysis of Communist regimes of accumulation; its political–economic assumptions were challenged on the basis of the growing importance of scientific knowledge and advanced technology in the process of production; and its emancipatory ideals have become increasingly remote from the themes of much current social and cultural dissatisfaction.
  • THE DEFINITIVE DISCOVERY of the CATEGORY of SURPLUS VALUE (Grundrisse, Pp

    THE DEFINITIVE DISCOVERY of the CATEGORY of SURPLUS VALUE (Grundrisse, Pp

    1 THE DEFINITIVE DISCOVERY OF THE CATEGORY OF SURPLUS VALUE (Grundrisse, pp. 321,10-358, 37; pp. 227, 18-264, 27)1 (Notebook III, from folio 21 to folio 40 of Marx´s manuscript, in December of 1857) Prof. Enrique Dussel A. (Philosophy Department, UAM-Iztapalapa, Mexico City) “The surplus value (Mehrwert) which capital has at the end of the production process –a surplus value which, as a higher price of the product, is realized only in circulation, but, like all prices, is realized in it by already being ideally presupposed to it, determined before they enter into it- signifies, expressed in accord with the general concept of exchange value that the labour time objectified in the product -or amount of labour (expressed passively, the magnitude of labour appears as an amount of space; but expressed in motion, it is measurable only in time)- is greater than that which was present in the original components of capital. This in turn is possible only if the labour objectified in the price of labour is smaller than the living labour purchased with it” (321, 10-22; 227,18-30). This is how the most critically important pages begin in all of Marx´ life, and in all of the Grundrisse. In these lines we can already observe the difficulties implied by a reflection regarding the issue that concerns us here. This difficulty will always signify a problem in the “order of categories” in Marx´s own processes of research and exposition. His marked tendency was always to prefer a path ranging from the simplest level to the most complex, from the deepest to the most superficial, from the abstract to the concrete.
  • Abstract Labor: Substance Or Form

    Abstract Labor: Substance Or Form

    ABSTRACT LABOR: SUBSTANCE OR FORM ABSTRACT LABOR: SUBSTANCE OR FORM? A CRITIQUE OF THE VALUE-FORM INTERPRETATION OF MARX’S THEORY by Fred Moseley Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana (Mexico City) Mount Holyoke College (Massachusetts) May 1997 Our analysis has shown that the form of value, that is the expression of the value of a commodity, arises from the nature of commodity value, as opposed to value and its magnitude arising from their mode of expression as exchange-value. Marx (C. I. 152) It is not money that renders commodities commensurable. Quite the contrary. Because all commodities, as values, are objective human labor and therefore themselves commensurable, their values can be communally measured in one and the same commodity. Mon ey is the necessary form of appearance of the measure of value immanent in commodities - labor-time. Marx (C.I. 188) ABSTRACT LABOR: SUBSTANCE OR FORM? A CRITIQUE OF THE VALUE-FORM INTERPRETATION OF MARX’S THEORY In the Introduction to our first book, I wrote: All the authors agree that Marx attempted in Section 1 of Chapter 1 of Capital to derive abstract labor as the "substance of value," which exists prior to exchange - although it is not observable - and which determines the exchange values of com modities. But there is significant disagreement over the validity file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mhcuserxp/Desktop/VALUEFRM.htm (1 of 15)10/15/2005 2:29:42 PM ABSTRACT LABOR: SUBSTANCE OR FORM and necessity of Marx’s derivation. Indeed this disagreement is probably the most significant one amount the authors. This controversy has a long history beginning with Boehm-Bawerk.
  • Capital and Labour in the Twenty-First Century: SSA Theory and the Surplus Approach

    Capital and Labour in the Twenty-First Century: SSA Theory and the Surplus Approach

    Capital and labour in the twenty-first century: SSA theory and the surplus approach Cian MCMAHON1, Terrence MCDONOUGH 2 1 NUI Galway. [email protected] 2 NUI Galway. [email protected] ABSTRACT. Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century documents a trend of increasing inequality in the longue duree of capitalism. This conclusion has been widely welcomed by progressives, social democrats and socialists as confirming both their political analyses and a popular unease with contemporary trends. Piketty’s proposal for a progressive global tax on capital has received a more controversial welcome, not least by Piketty himself who sees his own proposal as a utopian idea. Can a structural critique of Piketty’s approach to capitalist history also serve to address doubts about the feasibility of Piketty’s favoured solution to rising inequality while also opening the door to more radical proposals? Social structure of accumulation (SSA) theory draws insight from the Marxian, post-Keynesian, and institutionalist traditions. In particular it shares with Marxism an understanding of capital as not a ‘thing’ but rather a relationship – specifically the relationship between capital and labour. In this sense the dynamics of inequality over time depend on the nature of this relationship and more particularly class conflict over the production and distribution of the social surplus product. Such an approach places capital and labour as the primary, antagonistic agents of distributional conflict and change. It is capital’s capacity to ensure this surplus is produced by the working class and subsequently appropriated by the capitalist class which underpins the distribution of income in capitalist society.
  • 2 Primitive Accumulation of Capital a System of Social Production Organized Along Capitalist Lines Can Be Represented by the Circuit of Capital: M-C-C’-M’

    2 Primitive Accumulation of Capital a System of Social Production Organized Along Capitalist Lines Can Be Represented by the Circuit of Capital: M-C-C’-M’

    DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS Working Paper Capital, Non-Capital and Transformative Politics in Contemporary India Deepankar Basu Working Paper 2019-01 UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST UMass Amherst Economics Papers Capital, Non-Capital and Transformative Politics in Contemporary India Deepankar Basu± December 18, 2018 Abstract Kalyal Sanayal’s work on postcolonial capitalism has been influential in many strands of critical social theory. In this brief note, I investigate three key components of his argument and find them wanting. In particular, I show that the evolution of land ownership in India does not support the claim that the primitive accumulation of capital is one of the important processes in operation in contemporary India. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that the process of primitive accumulation has been arrested or significantly slowed down. In addition to the critical comments on Sanyal (2007), I indicate towards an alternative framework that is better able to explain the key features of contemporary India. JEL Codes: B24; O290 Keywords: postcolonial capitalism 1 Introduction In his 2007 book, Rethinking Capitalist Development: Primitive Accumulation, Governmentality and Post-Colonial Capitalism, Kalyan Sanyal offers an innovative analysis of contemporary capitalism in the global South. The economy of post-colonial capitalist social formations, Sanyal argues, is composed of two domains, a domain of capitalist production (which he calls capital) and a domain of non-capitalist production (which he calls non-capital). It is a key contention of ± Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Email: [email protected]. A shorter version of this paper was presented at the 2016 South Asia Conference at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.
  • The Marxist Theory of Overaccumulation and Crisis

    The Marxist Theory of Overaccumulation and Crisis

    The Marxist Theory of Overaccumulation and Crisis Simon Clarke 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 argument as the basis of a re- evaluation of the Marxist tradition. The issue is of the highest importance as erstwhile Marxists, in both East and West, fall victim once more to the `reformist illusion' that the negative aspects of capitalism can be separated from the positive, that the dynamism of capitalism can be separated from its crisis tendencies, that capitalist prosperity can be separated from capitalist immiseration. 1 Contemporary Marxist Crisis Theory The Marxist theory of crisis is distinguished from bourgeois theories in the first instance in being concerned with the necessity of crisis, in order to establish that the permanent stabilisation of capitalism and amelioration of the class struggle, on which reformism pins its hopes, is impossible.