Waiting for crisis

This discussion at the Brecht Forum last month between Robert Brenner and Sam Gindin gives a good intro to two major strands of Marxish political economic thinking about what’s happening. The videos stop before each speaker is finished unfortunately, but there’s enough there to get the picture. Otherwise, if you prefer not to stuff around with Google Video, Louis Proyect helpfully supplies links to both sides’ arguments in print.

To the extent they disagree, I’m firmly on Gindin’s side. In the long run, capitalism has been pretty healthy on its own terms these last couple of decades. The ‘credit crunch’ may well trigger a major recession, especially in the US. But it’s pretty unlikely to be a systemic crisis.

Brenner is right to focus on the profit rate and to suggest its fall was a major link in the chain of the 1970s crisis. But his explanation for the decline – “the onset and persistence of chronic overcapacity in world manufacturing” – is not very convincing. And as Gindin points out, it’s the postwar boom that was the real exception in capitalism’s history, not the less impressive performance since. Not too much should be made of the failure of mature capitalism to maintain a long boom forever. Brenner’s hypothesis about the replacement of state debt by private debt is really interesting, though, but he is not entirely clear about how it has happened.

Gindin’s argument is the one he has been making for quite a few years along with Leo Panitch. You can read a lengthy version here, and I highly recommend it. The gist is this: the neoliberal turn of the 1980s has been very successful in re-establishing capital’s social dynamism. Of course economic cycles and financial crises are going to recur, but they are not systemically threatening – without a political alternative, with capitalism firmly naturalised in the political consciousness, crisis in fact makes a good excuse for restructuring and it is easy to pass the real costs onto labour. The real crisis is still for the left, and economic crisis is no short cut.

Published in: on 5 January, 2008 at 2:53 pm  Comments (4)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://scandalum.wordpress.com/2008/01/05/waiting-for-crisis/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

4 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. I don’t really know how to call this. Certainly interesting stuff.

    Replacement of public debt by private debt – well, those guys up at CofFEE in Newcastle argue that the running of public surpluses simply forces individuals to borrow to make up the shortfall where the government expenditure used to be. I don’t know if this is right. It’s interesting that in the US even though the government is spending like a drunken sailor, consumer debt is still completely out of control, though this might reflect the fact that Bush squandered so much of the surplus on upper-class tax cuts.

  2. A more complete version of the debate is here:


  3. Louis, Mike does actually link to that MRZine post in the first line of his post. Moreover, those clips on there are really unsatisfactory, cutting off Brenner in particular just as he’s getting going, IMO.

  4. Hey Mark,
    Don’t get me wrong about Brenner, I think his stuff’s great but not the complete explanation he thinks, and I do think the manufacturing overcapacity thing is way overstretched. It’s been refuted quite convincingly I think. ‘Economics of Global Turbulence’ is really good, but I think anyone who reads it should also read the debate it stirred up, especially the two volumes of Historical Materialism devoted to it.

    I don’t agree with the CofFEE line about money. Bill Mitchell argues that because the state prints cash it controls the whole monetary system. I see states as powerful strategic actors within the monetary system, not in a commanding position above it. A capitalist government can print whatever numbers it likes on the bills but it can’t control what they exchange for.

    In this case the argument seems to be a false move from an identity (that deficits must equal credits in the economy as a whole) to a causal statement. It is a weird coincidence though that government deficits were replaced by private deficits. I don’t know if there’s anything to explain or how to explain it. The more I read about finance the less I feel I know.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: