Foster, J. B. (1990). Crises Lasting for Decades. Science and Society, 54(1), 73-81

8/19/2019 Foster, J. B. (1990). Crises Lasting for Decades. Science and Society, 54(1), 73-81

1/10

S S Quarterly, Inc.

Guilford Press

Crises Lasting for DecadesAuthor(s): John Bellamy FosterSource: Science & Society, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Spring, 1990), pp. 73-81Published by: Guilford PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40403049 .

Accessed: 10/06/2014 20:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

S&S Quarterly, Inc. and Guilford Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Science &Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.46 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 20:35:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=guilfordhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40403049?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40403049?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=guilford


2/10

CRISES

LASTING

FOR DECADES

73

Science

cf

ociety,

ol.

54,

No.

1,

Spring

1990,

73-81

CRISES

LASTING

FOR

DECADES

Sometimes

theoretical

ebate

will

degenerate

ntoa tower f

babel

because

he

participants,

ithout

eing

ware f the

fact,

re

answering

not

he ame

question

utdifferent

uestions.

t s therefore

ssential o

be clearaboutwhat s beingasked.In the case of my essay n The

Imperiled

conomy

Foster,

987),

whichHowardSherman

riticizes

n

a

recent

rticle

nScience

f

ociety

Sherman, 989),

he

uestion

was

given

in the itle:

What

s

Stagnation?"

oreover,

tagnation

s

distinguished

from

he

business

ycle

n

a

sentence

hat

refers

o

the former

s

a

"trend-line"

fslow

growth

around

which

he

recurrent

luctuations

f

the

business

ycle

ccur"

Foster,

987,

9).

Similarly,

n

the ther

rticle

thatSherman

riticizes

long

with

my

own

"Power,

Accumulation,

and

Crisis"

y

Gordon,

Weisskopf

nd Bowles the uthors lso make

itclear

that

what

hey

re

trying

o address t that

oint

s "the

tagna-

tion f theUnited tates conomyver he ast wodecades . ." (GWB,

1987,

53).

Sherman,

owever,

reats hese

pecific

ontributionss if

hey

were

concerned

primarily

ith he

very

different

but

of

course

related)

subject

f

the business

ycle,

hrowing degree

of

confusionnto he

discussion

s a

result. Neither

a demand-side

nor a

supply-side

approach,

herman

ells

s,

onstitutes

fully

eveloped profit-squeeze

theory"

f the

ycle,

ince

o

be

squeezed omething

as to be

"squeezed

from wo

sides."

Both

"supply-side

arxists"

a

label that Sherman

applies

o

Gordon,Weisskopf

nd

Bowles),

nd

"demand-side

arxists"

(a

labelunderwhich e includes

aran,

weezy

nd

myself)

re said to

reduce

theMarxist

otion hat

rofits

re

crushed

etween wo

nexo-

rable

forces

n

each

expansion"

o

ust

"one

essential

spect

r

relation."

Neither

f

these

heories,

herman

oncludes,

eserves he

abel

profit

squeeze."

ndeed,

Foster,"

e

points

ut,

didnot

use

the

words

rofit

squeeze"

Sherman,

989,

65).

This label Sherman hen laims s his

own

fter

roposing

"two-horned"

general

rofitqueezetheory"

r

"nutcracker"

odel.

The best

way

o

understand hat

s

happening

ere, think,

s to

view heproblemn termsfSherman'swnprevious ork, articularly

in relation

o certain

ong-standing

ifferences

hathe

has

with

he

theory

ssociated

ith

aran nd

Sweezy

s

Monopolyapital

1966).

Sher-

manhas

always

een first

nd

foremost theoristf

the

business

ycle,

and

in

this

ontext,

s well s in

his studies f

monopoly

rofits,

as


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/10

74

SCIENCE tf

SOCIETY

made

major

ontributions.

evertheless,

he

imits f his

nalysis

an

be

seen

in

the

fact hathe

has

persistently

nd

categorically

enied

any

validity

o theories f ecular

risis.

[A]ll

heories

f

ong-run

rises,"

e

wrote t one

point,

are

ncorrect . ."

(Sherman,

984,

91).

Further-

more,

hermanhas

frequently

sed this tance

o

distinguish

imself

from

he

tradition

epresented

y

Baran nd

Sweezy.

his can be seen

most

learly

n

the

followinguote

from herman's

eview

f

Monopoly

Capital

or

he

Americanconomiceview:

[W]here arx rguedhat ompetitiveapitalismuffersyclesfboom nd

bust

but

aid"there

re no

permanent

rises

.

."),

Baran nd

Sweezy

ee

monopolyroducing

permanent

endency

owardlowed

rowth

nd

tagna-

tion.

Sherman,

966,

20.)

The distinction

rawn

between

Baran/Sweezy

nd Marx here is

misleading,

ince he

postulate

f a more r less

"permanent

endency

toward lowed

growth"

subject

o

various

ountervailing

nfluences)

under

monopoly

apitalism

annotbe

reasonablyuxtaposed

to the

cryptic

emarks

hatMarx

directedt Adam mith

n

a five-lineootnote

in TheoriesfSurplus alue, o which hermans alludinghere Marx,

1968,

497n).

Certainly,

aran

and

Sweezy

ould

never

be accused

of

arguing

hat here s a

permanent alling

ateof

profit,

hich s what

Marx eems o be

criticizing

mith

or

n

that

assage.

Moreover,

arx

himself

as soon to

develop falling

ate

of

profit

heory

f his own

pointing

o secular risis endencies.

inally,

t

is

significant

hatthe

possibility

f

stagnation

nder ate

apitalism

s

already

isible

n

Engels'

1884

preface

o thefirst erman dition f Marx's

overtyf

hilosophy.

Thus at the end

of

a discussion

f

sharp

fluctuations

n world

rade,

Engels

dds the

following

ootnote:

At

east,

his

was

he aseuntil

ecently.

ince

ngland's onopoly

f heworld

markets

being

more ndmore hattered

y

he

articipation

f

France,

er-

many,

nd,

bove

ll,

of

America

n world

rade,

new orm

f

equalization

[between

roduction

ndthe

market]

ppears

obe

operating.

he

period

f

general

rosperityreceding

he risis till ails o

appear.

f it should ail

altogether,

hen hronic

tagnation

ould

ecessarily

ecomehe ormalondi-

tion

f modern

ndustry,

ith

nly

nsignificant

luctuations.

Engels,

963,

20n.)

The largely cholasticssueofwhether r notMarxand Engels

actually

ecognized

he

possibility

f

ong-run

risis,

s,

however,

minor

matter.More

mportant

s the fact

hat

herman imself

uite clearly

has an aversion

o

any

erious onsideration

f the

problem

f

economic

stagnation,

r

any

ther

onceivable orm f ecular risis.

ut n

reject-




4/10

CRISES LASTING

FOR

DECADES

75

ing

thishe s

closing

is

eyes

o

the

ignificance

hat

he

arger

istorical

environment

as

for the concrete

unctioning

f

the

economy.

his

aspect

f

the

modern

tagnation

ilemma

s

best

grasped

n

terms f

the

following

tatement

y

Kalecki: Our

analysis

hows

. .

that

ong-run

development

s

not nherent

n

the

capitalist

conomy.

hus

specific

'development

actors're

required

o sustain

long-run pward

move-

ment"

Kalecki,

1965,

161).

In

contrast,

herman

omplains

bout

theories

hat

ttribute

each

recovery

o an

external hock

such

as

innovations

r

wars).

t

is far

more

mpressive

he

says]

o

present

theoryhat xplains owthecapitalistystemeads todepressions,ut

also

how

depressions

ventually

end

to

lead

to

recoveries"

Sherman,

1989,

67).

But s

t

really

ossible

o

argue

o

confidently

hat

evere conomic

downturns

lways

eventually

end o ead"

to full

ecoveries as

if

he

trend,

s well

as the

cycle,

were

governed

y

some

automaticmech-

anism?

n the

populargame

"Trivial ursuit"

if

memory

erves)

he

answer

iven

o the

question

when

id

theGreat

Depression

nd?" s

"1933."

This

s when he

recoveryegan

of

tself,"

s

Schumpeter

aid.

Nevertheless,

n 1937the

unemployment

atewas till

4%,

nd

n

1938

itwas19%.Eventuallyull ecoveryid comeofcourse.But t amenot

as

a result

f

the automatic

unctioning

f

either he

regular

usiness

cycle

r

a

mythicalong

ycle,

ut s a

consequence

f

the econdWorld

War herman's

rgument

ould

ppear

o

agree

with

he

stablishment

viewpoint

hat

the

problem

would

have

"eventually"

een

solved

through

he

utomatic

orkings

f

the

conomy

ithout

ny

help

from

the state

r

the

military.

n

contrast,

tagnation

heorists

ould

rgue

thatwhile

his

s

possible

he

fact emains

hat he SecondWorld

War

was

apitalism's

olution

othe

risis,

nd

this n tselfhould

uggest

hat

there

s much

more t

issue here than

imply

he

business

ycle.

It s ofcourse ifficultomake ense fthisn terms f onventional

economic

raining

ince

ne is conditionedo think

f

the

economy

s

"self-equilibrating"

ver

the

ong

run,

s

well

as

over the short un.

Indeed,

adherence

o such views

s often

een

as a litmus

est of

respectability

ithin he

profession.

till,

Marxist

olitical

conomists

should

ake

eriously

alecki's

uestion

boutthe ecular rend:

Why

cannot

capitalist

ystem,

nce thas deviated ownward rom he

path

of

expanded

reproduction,

ind tself

n

a

position

f

ong-termimple

reproduction?"

Kalecki,

984,

164).

Kalecki's wn nswer

was

hat

here

is

nothing

n the

nature

fthe

apitalistconomy

hat

revents

his rom

happening.

his

being

he ase tbecomes

ecessary

omove

way

rom

mechanical

conomic

models and examine conomic

history,

here

there

s

some

hope

of

finding

n answer.

One need

only

dd

that

he

question

would

carcely

e

asked,

ither

n

the 1930s r

over he

ast wo




5/10

76

SCIENCE

fcf OCIETY

decades,

f

stagnation

erenot

actually resent

nd

yet

unaccounted

for.

Once

t s

recognized

hat

herman

as

always

ad

a

strong

version

to theories

f

secular

risis,

ne s

n

a

position

o understand ore

ully

his own

approach.

n

Sherman's

umerous rticles

n economic

risis

Marx's

heory

f the

falling

ate

f

profit

ased

on

rising rganic

om-

position

s subsumed

under

the

category

f a

cyclical

heory

which

emphasizes

rising

material

osts."

n

like

fashion,

tagnation

heory

f

the

ype

dvanced

y

Baran,

weezy

nd

Magdoff,

hich as

nvestment

as its central oncern,getssubsumedunder the category f "un-

derconsumption

heory"

which s

said,

virtually y

definition,

o

ignore

he

problem

f nvestment.

rofit

queeze

heories

uch s

those

of

Gordon,

Weisskopf

nd

Bowles re

generally

reated

more

traight-

forwardly,

ince

this s

mainly

business

ycle

heory.

et,

even here

Sherman

haracteristically

ends

o

neglect

heir reatment

f

the

ong

cycle

which s how

they

ry

o

stretch

heir

heory

nto a

secular

analysis.

In

all

ofthis herman

s,

believe,

rying

obe fair.

or

lthough

e

does not

give

much redence

o

problems

f secular

risis

e wants

o

showthateach of theseapproacheshas somelimited alidity hen

placed

n

the

ontext f

thebusiness

ycle.

Moreover,

ince hebusiness

cycle

s

by

definition

ymmetrical,

hile

he

ong-run

rend

f

develop-

mentfollows

somewhat

more ndeterminate

attern,

herman,

with

his

eyes

on

the

former,

s inclined o

think f theoretical

ontributions

that were

designed

primarily

n

relation

o the latter

s one-sided.

Indeed,

he

valiantly

ries o

overcome

his ne-sidedness

y

means

of

thought

lone

byproposing

two-hornedilemmas"

n

which

ll

sides

f

the

problem

re

given qual

importance.

et,

to me this eems o

be a

clear ase of whatC.

Wright

Mills

1959)

called thedemocratic

heory

ofknowledge" a type f "liberal racticality"hat lwaystresses al-

ance,

equilibrium

nd

countervailing

nfluences,

hile

xcluding,

y

general

heoretical

iat,

ny

possibility

f

long-term

neven

develop-

ment.

n

any

ase,

for

heorists

ocusing

n

secular

rises f low

rowth,

Sherman's

modifications

n the

name

f thebusiness

ycle

nd balanced

thinking

emove rom he

problem

ll

of its

most

ritical

spects.

This is

particularly

he case where

the traditiondentified

ith

Baran and

Sweezy's

Monopoly

apital

s concerned. or thinkersf

this

kind he main heoretical

oncern s

the

historical

eterminantsf the

accumulation

orsavings-and-investment)rocess.Although

hishas ts

short-run,

yclical

spect,meaningful

istoricaliscussions

egarding

investment

which

nvolve

he

xpansion

f

capacity,

he

projected

se

of

that

apacity,xpectations,

nnovation,

herelative

evelopment

and

stages

of

development)

f

departments

and

II in the

Marxian




6/10

CRISES LASTING FOR

DECADES

77

reproduction

chemes,

tc. are

not

easily

dealt with n

terms f a

stylized,

echanicalmodel

f the

business

ycle.

Accumulation

s

there-

fore reated

redominantly

n

a

long-run

ontext.

his s not o

say

hat

cyclical

nfluences

re

unimportant,

ut

simply

hat

the

nature of

accumulation

ecessarily

rives

ne toward

longer

iew,

eared

o

the

trend ather han he

cycle.

Hence,

t s not

urprising

hatwhen

herman akes

theory

f this

sort nd tries

o subsume t withinn

analysis

hat akes

nly

he

cycle

seriously,

arefully

emovingny

ong-run

nfluences,

e arrives

t the con-

clusion hat tone-sidedlyeglectsnvestment.hushe writeshat J.B.

Foster,

ollowing

he

views

xpressed

ySweezy

nd Baran n

Monopoly

Capital,

ees

the

problem

s a

torrent f

supply

acing very

imited

consumer emand"

Sherman,

989,

4).

This

eems o

reduce

Monopoly

Capital,

n addition o

my

own derivative

ork,

o a

crude

version f

underconsumptionism.

fter

ll,

even the

most

imple

model

has to

encompass

oth

onsumption

nd

nvestment.

herman's

nterpretation

therefore

as to be held

up against

he

ctual act hat

he

bulk

f

what

theorists

ike

Baran,

Sweezy

nd

Magdoff

ave written

as

focused

squarely

n investment.

f

one

looks t

Monopolyapital

tself,

irtually

nothingt all ifone discountshediscussion fthe ales ffort)sreally

said

aboutthe

consumption

f the

working

lass,

ince he

focus f the

entire

ook s on the

bsorption

f

the

urplus,

nd

workers,

s is

well

known,

ave

no access

o

surplus

While

he

key

discussion f

capitalist

consumption

ccupies

hree

ages,

he

bulk

fthe est f

their

67-page

analysis

s

concerned

with

historicalonditions

overning

nvestment,

government

pending,

nd international

apitalistxpansion.

It is therefore

ifficulto understand ow

Baran and

Sweezy's

analysis

an be treated

y

ne criticfter nother

for

hermans

not he

firsto

do

so)

as

if t

one-sidedlytops

t

consumption.

ndeed,

by

ayingthat heproblem osed bytheMonopolyapital heoryis a torrent f

supply facing

very

imited onsumer emand"

Sherman

himself

equates

he

tarting

oint

fthis

heory

which

ays

he

urplus

astobe

absorbed

ycapital

ince hemass

of

consumers o not

have

access o

surplus

withtsmain

ocus,

ompletely

gnoring

hefact

hat he

hief

concern

f the

analysis

s what

governs

nvestment

tself.

The main

vidence hat herman

oints

o

n

attempting

o

prove

the existence

f such

a

simplisticnderconsumptionism,

owever,

s

drawn

rom

my

wn

ssay.

herman

uotes

rom

he

following

assage,

which will

now

requote

n

full, lacing

n

talics

hose

arts

hat e had

replaced

with

llipses:

[A]ny

ontinual

lowing

ackof

profits

nto

new

nvestment

ould

meanthat

the means

of

production

Department

in

the

Marxian

reproduction

chemes,

he




7/10

78 SCIENCE o SOCIETY

demand

or

which omes ut

of

gross rofits),

ould

expand

very

much faster han

articles

of

consumption

or

Department

,

thedemand

or

which

omes

mainly

rom

wages).

his

s,

n

fact,

hebasic

pattern

f

every

ccumulation

oom.But

t s a

self-annihilating

rocess.

ooner

or

later

depending

n historical

onditions

e-

termining

he

degree

o

which he

nvestment

rocess

s

self-sustaining)

he means

of

production

re

built

p

to such

prodigious

xtent

hat

social

ispropor-

tionalityevelops

etween

he

apacity

o

produce

nd

the

orresponding

e-

mand.

A crisis

f overaccumulation

ooted

n

overexploitation

hen

ccurs.

(Foster,

987,

1.)

The followings theway n which hermanummarizes y rgu-

ment

n the above

quote:

In other

words,

orkers'

ay

does

not

xpand

s

rapidly

s

output

ecause

workersre

too

weak,

apitalists

re

too

trong,

ndthe

ate

f

xploitation

s

rising.

elatively

ess

ay

orworkers

eansess

onsumer

emand

han

vail-

able

goods.

Sherman,

989,

3.)

Now this

may

be what

herman

wants

me to

say,

but t

s notwhat

was

said,

o

the

in other

words" s

a non

equitur.

hat his

oes

s

give

the false mpressionhat hearguments concernedimplywith on-

sumption

nd

neglects

nvestment.

ndeed,

further

ownon

the same

page

he states

hat

domestic

emand

s

often

een

[by

demand-side

theorists"]

s

only

onsumer

emand,

with he

assumption

hat

nvest-

ment

s

merely

erivative

f

onsumption."

et,

nthe

foregoingassage

from

my ssay

which

herman

icked

ut

precisely

ith

he ntention

f

backing p

his

own

rgument)

refer o

aspects

f ccumulation

invest-

ment,

ccumulation,

veraccumulation,

arx's

epartment

)

a

number

of times.

n

addition,

n

pointing

o

demand nd

not

onsumption

s a

constraint

n the

expansion

f

productiveapacity

was

explicitly

formulating

hematterna way hat ncompassednvestment.or s a

simple

functional

elationship

etween

onsumption

nd

investment

postulated,

ince

refer ohistorical

actorshat

etermine

he

degree

o

which nvestment

s

self-sustaining

n

any givenperiod.

To be

sure,

Sherman

s correct

n

suggesting

hat

my rgument

oints

oa

rising

ate

of

exploitation

s a

keypart

f thedialectic

f crisis. ut

to

reduce

he

whole

question

o one of

"consumer emand"

not

only

distorts

he

analysis

hat

presented,

ut

removes

he

very

hing

hat

onstituted

ts

central ocus:

apital

formation.

What makesthisdoublydisturbings thatSherman

himself as

virtuallyothingmeaningful

o

say

nhis rticlebout he ccumulation

process

s such.

nvestments treated

imply

s a

component

n

aggre-

gate

ncome r demand.

Hence,

ccumulationoes

not

seem

to be

an




8/10

CRISES LASTING

FOR

DECADES

79

object

f

analysis

n

and

of

tself

n his

model,

espite

hefact hat

his s

the

cruxof the

contemporarytagnation

risis. his

seems

o

reflect

belief hat

nce t s shown hat here

re

two

aws supply

nd

demand)

to the

nutcrackerhat

queezes

cracks?)

rofits

n

each business

ycle

peak,

one

has solved he whole

problem

f

economic

risis,

ncluding

accumulation.

I

was

also

perplexed

when read Sherman's ontention

hat

my

analysis

ne-sidedlyneglects

he

roleof the

osts

f

supply,"

nd

wage

costs

n

particular

Sherman,

989,

4).

The rate

f

exploitation,

hich

Shermanhimselfays s at the coreof my analysis,s Marx'smain

supply-side

oncept.

ogically,

o

say

thatthe rate

of

exploitation

s

rising

o

more

neglects"

nit abor osts han o

say

hat t

s

falling

the

main

contention

f

Gordon,

Weisskopf

nd

Bowles).

To

suggest

s

Sherman

oes that

hewhole ruths that he

rateof

exploitation

oth

rises

nd falls

ver

the courseof

the

cycle

and

furtherhat ost

and

demand

constraints

ssert hemselves

o different

egrees

t

various

points

withinn

expansion),

implygnores

he

uestion

f ecular

risis.

For

a

crisis

f slow

growth

asting

or

decades

can

only

xist

f

either

supply-side

or

demand-side

constraints ssert themselves dis-

proportionatelyver he onghaul.Otherwiseherewould implye a

moving

quilibrium

s

postulated

n neoclassicalconomics.

ere

Spino-

za's

famous

hrase:

Omnis eterminadost

negatio"every

etermina-

tion s a

negation)

omes

o mind.

What re

the

political

mplications

hat herman raws?

n

closing

he

says

hat

his

"nutcracker"

odel s

superior

o

otherMarxian

risis

theories

ince

t

demonstrates

hat

only

he

end

of

capitalism

ill

nd

thebusiness

ycle."

n Sherman's

iew his s

a valuable onclusionince

Marxist

upply-side

heorists

imply

hat ower

wages

could

prevent

crises,"

while Marxist

emand-side heorists

erroneouslymply

hat

higherwages ouldpreventrises"Sherman,989, 0).HereI rubbed

my yes

n

disbelief

t is not

myplace

to

speak

for

Gordon,

Weisskopf

and

Bowles,

ut don't

hink

hey mply

hat

owering ages

ouldend

the usiness

ycle

what

herman

s

saying

ere.

However,

can

speak

for

he

traditiono which

belong,

nd

can

therefore

tate

definitively

hat

policy

f

promoting

igherwages

wouldnot

nd the

business

ycle

nder

apitalism,

hich

s an

inherent

part

f the

ccumulation

rocess.

Nor

are

higherwages

s such he

best

way

o deal

with

resent

roblems though

would

never

ttempt

o

discourage

workers

rom

ighting

or hem. here

are

of

course ther

routes o

redistributing

ncome nd wealthike

verhauling

regressive

tax

structure,

utting

military

pending,

nd

increasing

tate

pending

on

education,

ealth,

nd

housing,

s

well as on

combating overty,




9/10

80 SCIENCE £sfOCIETY

cleaning

p

theenvironmentnd

repairing

nfrastructure.hese

may

not

ound ike

revolutionaryolicies,

utto

be consistent

hey

must

e

constructed

ithin n

anti-capitalist

ogic.

Having

eached uch

point

n thediscussion

t s

no

doubt

worth-

while

o take

look t the

world round

s.

We

have

been

witnessing

ot

only

elative

tagnation

or

wo

decades

now,

but

also

formost f that

period

very

eliberate

trategy

f

supply-side

estructuringesigned

to redress

what

he

capitalist

lass

tself ees as

a

problem

f structural

crisis. his

strategy

as included:

reaking

nions,

romoting

nem-

ployment, riving ownwages, utting ack on state pending hat

benefits

he

poor,

altering

he

tax

system

o redistribute

ncome

nd

wealth

rom

he

poor

to the

rich,

nd

forcibly

liminating

bstacles

o

thefree

low

f

capital

n

the

underdevelopedegions

f the

globe.

t is

this

verwhelming

eality

f our time

hathas

most

nfluenced

y

wn

thinking

s a

political

conomist,

hich asbeen

governed

y

n

attempt

to

resist

hese

oncrete

ractices

y ombating

he

deological

mantle

f

supply-side

conomics

n

which

hey

re clothed.

And

in

the

face

of this etermined

lobal

nslaught

ycapital

he

most

powerful

onclusion

hat herman

himselfs able

to

give

us,

in

what urportso be a moredeveloped heoryfeconomicrisis,s that

thebusiness

ycle

s

inherent

o

capitalism

think

his

may

have

to

do

with

he

fact

hathe is

asking

he

wrong

uestion.

JOHN

BELLAMY

FOSTER

Department

f

Sociology

University

f Oregon

REFERENCES

Baran,

aul

A.,

nd

Paul M.

Sweezy.

966.

Monopolyapital.

ew

York:

Monthly

Review ress.

Engels,

rederick. 963

1884).

"Preface

o

the

FirstGerman dition."

n Karl

Marx,

The

Poverty

f

Philosophy.

ew

York: nternationalublishers.

Foster,

ohn ellamy.

987.

What

s

Stagnation?"

n Robert

herry,

t

i,

eds.,

The

mperiled

conomy.

ew York: Union

forRadicalPolitical

conomics,

59-70.

GWB. 1987.

Gordon,

avid

M.,

Thomas

Weisskopf

nd SamuelBowles.

Power,

Accumulation,nd Crisis." n RobertCherry,tal., eds., The mperiled

Economy.

ew

York:

Union

for

RadicalPolitical

conomics,

3-57.

Kalecki,

Michal.1965.

Theory

f

Economic

ynamics.

ew York:

Augustus

M.

Kelley.




10/10

CRISES

LASTING FOR DECADES

81

. 1984

1968).

"The Marxian

quations

f

Reproduction

nd

Modern

Economics."

n

John

ellamy

oster nd

Henryk

zlajfer,

ds.,

The

altering

Economy.

ew

York:

Monthly

eview

ress,

59-66.

Marx,

Karl.

1968

1862-63).

Theories

f urplus

alue,

art I. Moscow:

rogress

Publishers.

Mills,

.

Wright.

959.

The

ociological

magination.

ew

York:

Oxford

niversity

Press.

Sherman,

oward

J.

1966.

"Monopoly apital

An

Essay

on

the

American

Economic

nd SocialOrder."

Americanconomic

eview,

6:4

(September),

919-21.

. 1984 1979). Inflation,nemploymentndtheContemporaryusiness

Cycle."

n

John

Bellamy

oster

nd

Henryk zlajfer,

ds.,

The

Faltering

Economy.

ew

York:

Monthly

eview

ress,

1-117.

. 1989. "Theories

f Economic

risis:

Demand-Side,

upply-Side,

nd

Profit

queeze."

Science cf

ociety,

3:1

(Spring),

2-71.

Science cf

ociety,

ol.

54,

No.

1,

Spring

1990,

81-85

SHERMAN

ON

CRISES:

A

COMMENT

Howard Sherman's

ecent ommunication

n

Science sf

ociety

1989)

presents

useful

tarting oint

or

understanding

hecurrent

tate

f

Marxianrisisheory,

s

representedy

hisown

work,

nd

by

heworks

he criticizes

by John

Bellamy

oster,

nd

by

David

Gordon,

Tom

Weisskopf,

nd Sam

Bowles

GWB).

The

present

omment ocusses

n

what

see as

the

major

ontributions

f Sherman's

pproach,

nd also

on some

weaknesses

n his

argument.

Agreements

nd

Quibbles

First,

believe

herman

s correct

n

arguing

hat

complete

heory

of crisis

must

nvolve oth

"supply

ide" and "demand ide" factors

(Devine,1983; 1987a; 1987b).But mporting ainstreamerminology

into

he

theory

as

popularized

y

GWB)

can be

confusing.

While

t s

true thatmarket-oriented

argon

is less

scary

for

outsiders nd has

obvious onnections

ith

mainstream

acroeconomic

ebates,

t hin-

Documents

Foster, J. B. (1990). Crises Lasting for Decades. Science and Society, 54(1), 73-81