>You know, Seth, though I was on OPE-L for more than ten years only to be
>either suspended or expelled, I have never met Levy, Sinha or Bendien in
>any context. So I can't answer your
>questions.
>
>
Okay, fair enough.
>what I have been trying to underline is that capitalism creates
>contradictory tendencies.
>
>
I always get stuck on this point. What precisely is meant by "contradiction" here?
As far as I can tell, to say that capitalism has "contradictions" can mean one of three things:
1. Capitalism is full of logical contradictions, therefore it's can't possibly exist......Obviously that's not what you're saying. (This is Woj's point.)
2. Capitalism is full of contraditions, therefore it's always presenting us with delightful and fascinating paradoxes.....I'm pretty sure this is not what you're saying either, since it's more of a humanistic or poetic interpretation of capitalism than an attempt at scientific analysis.
3. Capitalism is full of contradictions in the Hegelian sense - tendencies which, in order to develop, must negate themselves......I suspect this is closer to your meaning, but I think it's deeply problematic. To my mind, the claim that capitalism is built on contradictions of this type, if it is to have any real meaning, can *only* mean either
(1) "therefore, there are booms and busts." In other words, it's a run-of-the mill business cycle theory - and not a very good one, since there are plenty of others far more susceptible to empirical verification and forecasting;
or
(2) "capitalism must destroy itself." In other words, it's a FROP by the back door. But that brings us back to the empirical question. Capitalism has survived these supposed contradictions for 200 years without exhibiting any long-run tendency to wind down.
Let me try to make my point clearer. Minsky's financial instability hypothesis can also be read as a claim that "contradictions" lie at the heart of contemporary capitalism. If the Minskyians were of a more Hegelian bent, I suspect they would probably use the word "contradiction" in every other sentence. Minsky says that robust business expansions encourage their own self-perpetuation through the accumulation of financial positions that are inherently unstable and whose unwinding will end the business expansion. But - and here's the point - Minsky's theory doesn't claim to be anything more than a theory of the business cycle. But at least it has the virtue of being rich with possibilities for empirical testing, forecasting and even policy prescriptions. How does that compare with the "contradictions" you're highlighting?
Seth