>Isn't it pretty orthodox to say that capitalism requires its crises _in
>order to_ reproduce itself? Liquidating some capitals so that the
>remaining ones may again begin the expansionary part of the cycle, and
>so on. It's being argued that in this cycle there have not been _enough_
>bankruptcies; Brenner's argued that less efficient plant being kept in
>production underlies current economic problems. A crisis of insufficient
>crisis.
But this is normal competition - part of the "beauty of capitalism," as Paul O'Neill said of Enron. Winners, losers; fortunes, liquidations; expansions, recessions. It's misleading to call these crises, because the word implies some dramatic break. If they happen every day, they're by definition routine.
I think most Marxists who use the word are either consciously or unconsciously echoing a "death agony" rhetoric <http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1938-tp/> - this is finally really the Big One that's going to reveal all the hidden contradictions, and the System will come smashing down. Even if users of the concept don't mean to, they're evoking that discursive register.
Doug