We've had endless rounds of discussion on this topic. In the abstract, whether there is a "tendency for the rate of profit to fall" or a "tendency of surplus to rise" the debate matters to participants because it has to do with Marx's claims about the trajectory of capitalist mode of development. As this dispute typically manifests itself here and on PEN-L it's *appears* to be an arcane pissing match about whether theoretical predictions have proven true or not, particularly as regards Leninist thought. For instance, Bottomore et al., write:
"Leninists regard capitalism as an international and imperialist phenomenon. The laws of accumulation in the advanced capitalist countries lead to crises of overproduction of commodities and capital, and to a tendency for the rate of profit to fall; the search for profits leads to the export of capital and to a temporary stabilization of the capitalist world. Imperialism entails the division of the world between the dominant advanced industrial nations and the colonial societies which are forced into the world system, and it led to military conflict between these nations in world war 1. This in turn produced a destabilization of the world capitalist system, and created favourable conditions for revolution."
Presumably, then, those who've intervened to come up with an alternative model have been interested in showing how Leninist thought went wrong--why the predictions did not come to fruition. Yes? No?
But, I'm wondering what it matters in terms of concrete political practice. For instance, in Capital V III Marx writes that, ultimately, the
"reason for all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as opposed to the drive of capitalist production to develop the productive forces as though only the absolute consuming power of society constituted their outer limit"
If this is a fair representation, then the goal of political practice is to pursue strategies that advance "the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses." Of course, as Carrol points out, we don't really have to pursue these strategies, they'll just happen because that is the tendency. In the meantime, the goal is to create the political practices, organizations, resources, and so forth that will enable Marxists and Heavy Users of Marx to move people toward every more radical analyses of the crises they are facing and the decisions they need to make.
Presumably, the other side(s)--those who are arguing that Marxist thought and theory needs to be reworked given new knowledge, new evidence, and different material conditions within which the capitalist develops--have a different vision of the relationship between theory and practice.
What might those different perspectives be? What's at stake? How will different answers affect the way you think about organizing, making decisions like whether to vote or not and for whom you'll vote, deciding whether to involve yourself in antiwar efforts or union organizing or building a third party(ies) or some combination, whether you see anarchists/libertarians/liberals/Liberals/reformists/etc. as "on our side," and so forth?
Kelley
(my dick was broken when I envied it)