Lyev
19th February 2010, 20:06
It seems the more reading, research and debate I do on the capitalist crisis theory the more I am confused. There are a few different takes on it, that for me, don't really seem to correlate with each other.
(1) For example, this: A Chronology of Capitalism (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.radioproject.org/2010/02/chronology-of-capitalism-encore/), doesn't seem to correlate with other definition of the Marxist theory of crisis. The link says, as I remember it, that US capitalist was pretty dandy for the first 50 years or so of it's existence. Capital accumulation kept on running ahead of workers so this was solved by bringing in an unprecedented amount of immigrants into America. Then in the 70s "real wages stopped rising" or something like that (by the way, I'm not sure I understand this part properly) but anyway, as a result bosses didn't have to raise wages as much.
(2) But then brendanmcooneys has crisis down as an antagonism between the forces of production (machines, tools, factories etc.) and the relations of production (capitalist vs capitalist, worker vs capitalist, worker vs worker). Here: "The contradiction between these forces and relations has to do with the fact that workers are creating the value that sustains this system, yet the drive is to replace them with machines in order to make their labor more efficient. Thus the social relations compel capitalists to improve the forces of production in a way which undermines the goal of these same social relations (to extract more value from workers)."
(3) And then, a blog entry on inflation posted by a user on here, who I don't think hangs around here much anymore:
Okay, theres a rise in speculators, financiers, brokers, bankers, ect -- the bank finds that it is able to loan out more money to a business-sector (credit).
These contracts are made with the promise that the business will pay back to the bank with interest (credit).
However, the business-sector can't create and sell enough commodities (ie create wealth) in accordance to the amount that the bank promised that it's share-holders would recieve from the revenue of the bank.
When the bubble of a market bursts; means no more wealth can be created, revenues decline-- commodities can't be created and sold to keep up with the level of the debt. In short: There isn't said amount of wealth being created that the bank promised its holders. So the bank calls in its loans. There are bankruptcies, and share prices fall.
In todays case, the Treasury prints more and more money to bail out banks from going bankrupt, and feeling the debth of their losses (among other things, like war expenditure). As money is backed by gold, and gold by the labour neccessary for its abstraction and transport--the ratio of paper money to gold increases, thus paper money declines in value.
Wages decrease under inflation because when the market was first expanding there was a greater demand in labourers, now as markets contract, theres a decrease in demand-- there are too many labourers.Could someone help me out here? Thanks for your patience. Also, has anyone got any rebuttals to those annoying Lib Dems and Obama-ites who say that the crisis was wholly the fault of "greedy bankers" and that regulation of banks would sort this mess out? Thanks a lot comrades.
(1) For example, this: A Chronology of Capitalism (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.radioproject.org/2010/02/chronology-of-capitalism-encore/), doesn't seem to correlate with other definition of the Marxist theory of crisis. The link says, as I remember it, that US capitalist was pretty dandy for the first 50 years or so of it's existence. Capital accumulation kept on running ahead of workers so this was solved by bringing in an unprecedented amount of immigrants into America. Then in the 70s "real wages stopped rising" or something like that (by the way, I'm not sure I understand this part properly) but anyway, as a result bosses didn't have to raise wages as much.
(2) But then brendanmcooneys has crisis down as an antagonism between the forces of production (machines, tools, factories etc.) and the relations of production (capitalist vs capitalist, worker vs capitalist, worker vs worker). Here: "The contradiction between these forces and relations has to do with the fact that workers are creating the value that sustains this system, yet the drive is to replace them with machines in order to make their labor more efficient. Thus the social relations compel capitalists to improve the forces of production in a way which undermines the goal of these same social relations (to extract more value from workers)."
(3) And then, a blog entry on inflation posted by a user on here, who I don't think hangs around here much anymore:
Okay, theres a rise in speculators, financiers, brokers, bankers, ect -- the bank finds that it is able to loan out more money to a business-sector (credit).
These contracts are made with the promise that the business will pay back to the bank with interest (credit).
However, the business-sector can't create and sell enough commodities (ie create wealth) in accordance to the amount that the bank promised that it's share-holders would recieve from the revenue of the bank.
When the bubble of a market bursts; means no more wealth can be created, revenues decline-- commodities can't be created and sold to keep up with the level of the debt. In short: There isn't said amount of wealth being created that the bank promised its holders. So the bank calls in its loans. There are bankruptcies, and share prices fall.
In todays case, the Treasury prints more and more money to bail out banks from going bankrupt, and feeling the debth of their losses (among other things, like war expenditure). As money is backed by gold, and gold by the labour neccessary for its abstraction and transport--the ratio of paper money to gold increases, thus paper money declines in value.
Wages decrease under inflation because when the market was first expanding there was a greater demand in labourers, now as markets contract, theres a decrease in demand-- there are too many labourers.Could someone help me out here? Thanks for your patience. Also, has anyone got any rebuttals to those annoying Lib Dems and Obama-ites who say that the crisis was wholly the fault of "greedy bankers" and that regulation of banks would sort this mess out? Thanks a lot comrades.