Introduction: Marxism and the Theory of Crisis - The Theory of Crisis in the Marxist Tradition - Overproduction and Crisis in the Early Works - Production, Circulation and Global Crisis after 1848 - Money, Capital and Crisis in the Grundrisse - Underconsumption, Disproportionality and Overproduction - The Falling Rate of Profit and the Tendency to Crisis - Crises and the General Law of Capitalist Accumulation - Conclusion - Bibliography - Index

Western Capitalism Since the War

Marx's Theory of Crisis

This paper surveys literature from several disciplines on how and why governments grow. The empirical question as to whether, or to what degree, government has grown is critically entwined with the nature of the ‘dependent variable’ chosen (federal government expenditures as a proportion of GNP, total real public expenditures, number of government employees as a percentage of the workforce, etc.). Specific approaches to the study of government growth considered include those associated with: Wagner's ‘Law’, the ‘Displacement Effect Hypothesis’, formal models of political and economic behavior, behavioral views of organizational decision making, the ineffectiveness of the public sector in coping with economic decline, and Marxist views.

Theorizing About the Growth of Government: A Research Assessment

An interpretation of the Marxian theory of crisis that rejects the ‘Keynesianism’ of most post-war contributions on the topic. Various criticisms of Marx's position are examined and two popular but incorrect versions of the theory are discussed; the underconsumptionist and disproportionality theory of crisis. An attempt is made to begin an analysis of the role of state intervention in the economy and indicate the limitations of intervention by the capitalist state implied by Marx's theory of crisis.

The Marxian theory of crisis, capital and the state ∗

and, in the long run, creates oligarchies. “Competition kills competition.” In Proudhon’s view, however, the absence of competition would be no less pernicious. Taking the tobacco administration,5 he found that its products were too dear and its supplies inadequate simply because it had long been a monopoly free from competition. If all industries were subject to such a system, the nation would never be able to balance its income and expenditures. The competition Proudhon dreamed of was not to be the laissez-faire competition of the capitalist economic system, but competition endowed with a higher principle to “socialize” it, competitionwhichwould function on the basis of fair exchange, in a spirit of solidarity, competition which would both protect individual initiative and bring back to society the wealth which is at present diverted from it by capitalist appropriation. It is obvious that there was something utopian in this idea. Competition and the so-called market economy inevitably produce inequality and exploitation, and would do so even if one started from complete equality. They could not be combined with workers’ self-management unless it were on a temporary basis, as a necessary evil, until (1) a psychology of “honest exchange” had developed among the workers; (2) most important, society as a whole had passed from conditions of shortage to the stage of abundance, when competition would lose its purpose. Even in such a transitional period, however, it seems desirable that competition should be limited, as in Yugoslavia today, to the consumer-goods sector where it has at least the one advantage of protecting the interests of the consumer. The libertarian communist would condemn Proudhon’s version of a collective economy as being based on a principle of conflict; competitors would be in a position of equality at the start, only

https://libcom.org/files/Anarchism_%20From%20Theory%20to%20Practice%20-%20Guerin,%20Daniel.pdf.pdf

Anarchism: From Theory to Practice

After the peace bonus era, global military expenditures have escalated sharply despite some worldwide declines in military personnel. Theories on the economic impacts of the military institution and escalated military spending greatly differ and include arguments that they either improve domestic economic performance or crowd out growth-inducing processes. Empirical findings on this matter are inconclusive, in part due to a failure to disentangle the various dimensions of military expenditures. We further suggest that modern sociology's relative inattention to such issues has contributed to these shortcomings. We explore a new dimension of military spending that clarifies this issuemilitary expenditures per soldier which captures the capital intensiveness of a countrys military organization. Our cross-national panel regression and causal analyses of developed and less developed countries from 1990 to 2003 show that military expenditures per soldier inhibit the growth of per capita GDP, net of control variables, with the most pronounced effects in least developed countries. These expenditures inhibit national development in part by slowing the expansion of the labor force. Labor-intensive militaries may provide a pathway for upward mobility, but comparatively capital-intensive military organizations limit entry opportunities for unskilled and under- or unemployed people. Deep investments in military hardware also reduce the investment capital available for more economically productive opportunities. We also find that arms imports have a positive effect on economic growth, but only in less developed countries.

background

/pdf/bringing-the-military-back-in-military-expenditures-and-4bg3euo4qo.pdf

Western Capitalism Since the War

Citations

Marx's Theory of Crisis

Theorizing About the Growth of Government: A Research Assessment

The Marxian theory of crisis, capital and the state ∗

Anarchism: From Theory to Practice

Bringing the Military Back in: Military Expenditures and Economic Growth 1990 to 2003

Related Papers (5)

Military expenditure and capitalism

The Accumulation of Capital

Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the American Economic and Social Order

Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism

Imperialism and world economy