|
WSWS : Correspondence
: Marxist
political economy
The cause of capitalist crises
By Nick Beams
12 February 2002
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email the
author
Dear Mr. Beams
I thought that your piece about the underlying causes of the
Enron Crisis was right on target, but the Marxian roots are very
difficult to communicate to the average reader, including me.
This surplus value capital expansion talk makes my mind wander
and my eyes roll. For me, Henry Fords insight in the 1920s
that he had to pay his workers more so that they could afford
to buy his Fords is a better explanation. If capitalists extract
too much profit, they destroy the ability of employees to buy.
I wish that Marxists would use language and examples that we
can use to communicate to others.
DP
Dear DP,
While I can appreciate that you find the analysis of surplus
value and capital accumulation difficult to follow, and that my
explanations may not always be as clear as they could be, this
does not mean that we should try to substitute a simplified
analysis. There is, as Marx put it, no royal road to science and
if the essence of matters corresponded to how they appear there
would be no need for science at all.
The importance of this approach is underscored by your remarks
on Henry Ford who claimed that he paid his workers higher wages
so they could buy back his cars. You write: If capitalists
extract too much profit, they destroy the ability of employees
to buy.
This explanation of the crises of capitalism forms the basis
of the so-called underconsumptionist theories. It does seem to
accord better with the realities of the capitalist
system than complex explanations of value, labour power, surplus
value, organic composition of capital, the falling rate of profit
and the other categories whose complex interaction form the basis
of a Marxist analysis.
The underconsumptionist explanation seems quite obvious and
straightforward: since the expenditure of workers forms the final
market for the commodities produced by capitalist firms, if wages
are too low and profits too high workers will not be able to buy
back the goods they have produced and capitalists will not be
able to realise their profits.
The problem with such explanations is that they are wrong.
The value of the commodities produced by the capitalist firm embodies
the surplus value extracted from the workers in the process of
production. The value of the labour power that the worker sells
to the capitalist (expressed in its monetary form as wages) is
always less than the value added by the worker in the course of
the working day. This is a permanent condition
of capitalist production and cannot be invoked to explain the
development of a crisis. Indeed, without it there would be no
profit, and no accumulation of capital.
The question that has to be answered is how markets are cleared
of commodities and yet surplus value is continually extracted
from the workers who produce them. The answer lies in the fact
that the demand for commodities does not solely comprise the consumption
of workers. There is also the productive consumption of capitalist
firms. This productive consumption comprises the replacement of
the existing means of production plus the purchase of additional
means of production (new investment) financed out of the profits
which capital has extracted from the working class. This creates
a demand for the production of raw materials, machinery etc.,
other capitalists employ workers to produce them, these workers
in turn spend their money on consumption goods, clearing the markets
in this sector and so on.
Markets will continue to be cleared in this way and profits
realised, so long as sufficient surplus value is extracted from
the working class. But if the rate of profit starts to decline,
then investment falls, demand drops, less workers are employed,
demand for consumption goods declines and a crisis develops. It
is only resolved when measures are undertaken which increase the
rate of profit once again.
We do not have the space here to go through the operations
of the business cycle and the longer-term tendencies of capitalist
production.
The point I want to emphasise at this point is the following:
contrary to the appearances of everyday life, it is not too much
profit which causes a crisis for capitalism but rather too little.
Herein lies the significance of Henry Ford and the assembly-line
production methods he introduced. These methods vastly increased
the productivity of labour and the rate at which surplus value
was extracted from the working class. The extension of these methods
through the major capitalist countries in the post-war period
formed the basis of the post-war boom. Contrary to the underconsumptionist
thesis, it was precisely in the post-war boom that profit rates
were at their highest.
The crisis of capitalism today has its source in the pressures
produced by the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and the
inability of capital, despite its most strenuous efforts, to develop
a new regime of production that can lift the profit rate the same
way assembly-line production did.
As for Henry Fords claim that he paid his workers higher
wages so that they could buy back the cars they produced, it should
be noted that Ford was always a good propagandist in his own cause.
The real reason for the higher wages was that assembly-line production
was so much more arduous than anything which had gone before.
As a result labour turnover was so rapid it was difficult to keep
a workforce. This was why Ford increased wages in the 1920s. However
such was the increase in the rate of exploitation resulting from
the new methods that he was still able to make above average profits.
See Also:
The Enron collapse and the
crisis of the profit system
[29 January 2002]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |