akliman
22nd July 2013, 23:42
by Andrew Kliman, Alan Freeman, Nick Potts, Alexey Gusev, and Brendan Cooney
www . marxist-humanist-initiative . org/economic-crisis/the-unmaking-of-marxs-capital-heinrichs-attempt-to-eliminate-marxs-crisis-theory . html
Michael Heinrichs recent Monthly Review article claims that the law of the tendential fall in the rate of profit (LTFRP) was not proved by Marx and cannot be proved. Heinrich also argues that Marx had doubts about the law and that, for this and other reasons, his theory of capitalist economic crisis was only provisional and more or less in continual flux.
This response shows that Heinrichs elementary misunderstanding of the law his belief that it is meant to predict what must inevitably happen rather than to explain what does happen is the source of his charge that it is unproved. It then shows that a simple misreading of Marxs text lies at the basis of Heinrichs claim that the simplest version of the LTFRP, the law as such, is a failure. Marxs argument that increases in the rate of surplus-value cannot cancel the fall in the rate of profit is then defended against Heinrichs attempt to refute it. Finally, the paper presents evidence that Marx was indeed convinced that the LTFRP is correct and that he regarded the crisis theory of volume 3 of Capital as finished in a theoretical sense.
July 22, 2013
www . marxist-humanist-initiative . org/economic-crisis/the-unmaking-of-marxs-capital-heinrichs-attempt-to-eliminate-marxs-crisis-theory . html
Michael Heinrichs recent Monthly Review article claims that the law of the tendential fall in the rate of profit (LTFRP) was not proved by Marx and cannot be proved. Heinrich also argues that Marx had doubts about the law and that, for this and other reasons, his theory of capitalist economic crisis was only provisional and more or less in continual flux.
This response shows that Heinrichs elementary misunderstanding of the law his belief that it is meant to predict what must inevitably happen rather than to explain what does happen is the source of his charge that it is unproved. It then shows that a simple misreading of Marxs text lies at the basis of Heinrichs claim that the simplest version of the LTFRP, the law as such, is a failure. Marxs argument that increases in the rate of surplus-value cannot cancel the fall in the rate of profit is then defended against Heinrichs attempt to refute it. Finally, the paper presents evidence that Marx was indeed convinced that the LTFRP is correct and that he regarded the crisis theory of volume 3 of Capital as finished in a theoretical sense.
July 22, 2013