>>> Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> 02/19/00 03:00PM >>>
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>So The first point (and there are many things to be said here) is that
>however much surplus value (or net output) is projected to rise due to
>bringing on such cheaper equipment, it has to be sufficient to cover losses
>on that old capital brought into being under less productive conditions.
>The absolute growth of capital requires a rate of surplus value large
>enough to cover both the new investments and the devaluation of the
>existing capital.
Which I take has happened, since capitalism has survived for the last several centuries.
&&&&&&&&&&&
CB: But Marx's theory of the business cycle , FROP and contradictorily overproduction/underconsumption, is a theory of cyclical , not capitalism endtime , crisis, isn't it ? He doesn't claim that the periodic crisis is identical with revolutionary crisis. Of course , the dissatisfaction of economic depressions can be an important factor in leading a lot of people to be anti-capitalist system and pro socialism, but the revolution is not identical with the objective cyclical crisis, but requires class and socialist conscious masses, led by a party, etc.
In other words, Marx does not predict that the periodic failure of what Rakesh mentions, or any other drop in profits and surplus value will just automatically cause the end of capitalism. Famously, what Marx says is that these periodic crises are part of the way in which capitalism reboots itself and in fact SURVIVES. Periodic crises are part of how capitalism has survived for the last several centuries. Marx described creative destruction first.
CB