kondratieff cycle

[Eoin Dubh]

I recently heard of Nikolai Kondratieff's 'wave' or 'cycle' of the economy.

I an not a learned academic, but I was wondering what other members, more informed, could make of his theory?

Does this theory have any practical use for the Left??

[Severian]

I think this theory's wrong.

The long-term trends in the economy don't follow a steady cyclical pattern; they're influenced by events.

For example: There was a long-term economic upturn, especially in the U.S., after WWII. Not because of a Kondratieff wave, but because a lot of means of production were destroyed in Europe (resolving the overproduction crisis), and because the U.S., as the victor, emerged from the war able to dominate the world market.

This lasted until Washington's competitors were able to rebuild...starting a long-term period of, at most, slow growth. This began with the '74 world recession.

[Floyce White]

I know all about it.

There are definable long cycles and short cycles of capitalist economy. But the "50 year period" was just plain dogmatic stupidity. You can't take Kondratieff as written. You must build on the basic idea.

The "short cycles" or "business cycles" are 5 or 6 whole years--roughly one-quarter of the 22-year solar-flare cycle that influences drought periods and heavy storm years, that in turn causes bumper crops or crop failures in by far the largest capitalist industry: agriculture.

The "long cycles" or "Krondatieff waves" consist of a whole number of short cycles according to emperical formula:

The "center" long cycle was from the depression of the 1890s to the depression of the 1930s. It consisted of 7 short cycles.

The long cycles both before and after the "center" long cycle consisted of 11 short cycles. Before center: from the depression of the 1830s to the depression of the 1890s. After center: from the depression of the 1930s to the depression of the 1990s.

The long cycle two before the "center" long cycle consisted of 13 short cycles.

The long cycle three before the "center" long cycle consisted of 15 short cycles.

The long cycles themselves can be divided into quarters of depression, recovery, boom, and decline. These quarters also consist of whole numbers of short cycles. The depression quarters overlap the end of one long cycle and the start of the next long cycle.

Inflation is very pronounced in the recovery and decline quarters. Unemployment and deflation are very pronounced in the depression quarters. The boom quarters are the height of economic prosperity, but indicate the slowing of growth, so boom quarters are periods of intense war to maintain expansion.

I did an exhaustive study of business statistics in the '80s--that's how I came up with the figures.

The theory is of great usefulness. We should see an end of the current world economic depression quarter at the end of this short cycle. However, don't look for a boom like the 1950s.

[Eoin Dubh]

Is Kondratieffs cycle of any use for activists to anticipate revolutionary opportunity?

For example, when there is a 'baby boom' of young people and a simultaneous wave of prosperity, like in the sixties, or a simultaneous period of scarcity or austerity measures from Capitalist rulers and deprivation with many hopeless/jobless youth?

I read on this Cappie "tradertalk" website that Kondratieffs work was commisioned to show the inevitable failure of Capitalism, but because he demonstrated the historic inherent ability of free people in a market environment (capitalism) to survive he was exiled to Siberia where he is thought to have died in the 1930's.

I doubt he would earn a one way trip to Siberia just for that.
Is that correct analysis, though? Here is the link : http://www.tradertalk.com/tutorial/kondcy.html

I am inclined to think he was on the right track, that Capitalism will self destruct, for after all, it is infinite and the planet is finite. And so is the patience of the global working class.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

[Floyce White]

Any analysis of economic cycles is of absolutely no use in predicting or determining the potential for anti-capitalist struggle. Very fortunately for me, the fall of the Soviet Bloc occurred just a few years after I made this analysis, or I would have wasted ever more time trying to find correlations between socialist capitalism and "free-market" capitalism.

Business is capitalist-class struggle against the working class. Communism is working-class struggle against the capitalist class. Business cycles are not cycles of communism. Business cycles have no relation to communism. Business cycles do not cause communism. Business cycles contribute zero to the struggle against capitalism. Working-class people make communism--capitalists don't.

I hope this is clear enough.