FIlm of a talk given by Andrew Kliman, 5th July 2015 'The Failure of Capitalist Production: Political Implications of the Great Recession' Hosted by The Socialist ...
FIlm of a talk given by Andrew Kliman, 5th July 2015 'The Failure of Capitalist Production: Political Implications of the Great Recession' Hosted by The Socialist ...
Andrew Kliman of the Marxist-Humanist initiative criticises the arguments of David Graeber, which have been widely influential within the US Occupy movement.
WRITTEN IN THE AFTERMATH of the 2008 banking crash and published in 2012, Andrew Kliman’s The Failure of Capitalist Production adds to the extensive literature on American decline.[1] Kliman identifies the way that profits have tended to fall relative to investments since the 1970s and also the diminishing rate of investment itself (the latter, he says, a consequence of the former)—a period of underaccumulation over the period from the mid-seventies to the present day, around 40 years, or longer than most people have been alive. Claiming to ground his argument in Marx’s theory of capital, Kliman says that “the persistent fall in the rate of profit produced a persistent fall in the rate of capital accumulation” (p 74).
The Economic Crisis & Left Responses was convened by Marxist-Humanist Initiative on November 6, 2010 at Pace University in lower Manhattan. Panel 1 features Brendan Cooney, Roslyn Bologh, Richard Wolff, Andrew Kliman, and Ray McKay (chair). Panel 2 features Paul Mattick, Walter Daum, Mac Intosh, and Brendan Cooney (chair). Panel 3 features Barry Finger, Anne Jaclard, Fred Moseley, Mike Dola (closing remarks), and Walter Daum (chair).
In ‘Clarifying the Crisis,’ published earlier this year inJacobin magazine, the Canadian political economist Sam Gindin reasserted his view that the global economic crisis that erupted in 2008 ‘needs to be understood primarily as a financial crisis.’ To be sure, the U.S. financial crisis was the event that triggered the Great Recession, and Gindin is certainly correct that the recession ‘turned into such a generalized and profound economic catastrophe’ largely because of the size of the financial sector, global financial integration, and the securitization of mortgage loans. Yet has one really ‘clarified the crisis’ by saying only this and then quickly moving on, as he does?
One of the biggest controversies among labor theorists when it come to calculating the rate of profit is whether the profit rate should be calculated based on the original amount of capital laid out by the capitalists minus depreciation or the current cost of replacing this capital. For example, assume I bought a widget machine for 100 dollars last year. Assume also that since I bought this machine, the price of widget machines fell from 100 dollars to fifty dollars. When I calculate my profit do I do this based on my original investment of 100 dollars or on the basis of the current market price of fifty dollars?
Andrew Kliman, author of "Reclaiming Marx's Capital", speaks about the Marxist theory of capitalist crisis. This interview was filmed on April 19th, 2009. Kliman speaks about Marx's theory of crisis- the Falling Rate of Profit- and critiques some of the other theories of crisis that are floating around out there. He also comments on the state of academic Marxism, the public reception of his research on the transformation problem, and envisioning alternatives to capitalism.
As part of my read-through of Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century, here, as promised, is an article from 2013 by Andrew Kilman published at the Marxist-Humanist Initiative. Here, Kliman challenges the “Piketty-Saez method” of calculating income and income-units. Enjoy.
In an article published earlier this year by Jacobin, the Canadian political economist Sam Gindin described the 2008 economic collapse as ‘a primarily financial crisis’. Writing for New Left Project, Andrew Kliman rejected that analysis, arguing that the crisis was rooted in long term capitalist stagnation. Sam Gindin responded that on the contrary the 2008 financial crisis capped off one of the most dynamic eras for capital in American history. Kliman replied with an in-depth examination of Gindin’s data. Here Gindin responds, urging recognition of labour’s defeat at the hands of capital, so that we can begin to think about how to reverse it.
I was 12 years old in 1968, a moment of tremendous radical ferment, and I immediately identified with all of the forces struggling for freedom. I don’t remember whether I immediately identified with socialism, too – in the environment of the time, immediately linking the two would have been rather natural – or whether that took a bit of reading and thinking.
Society I will examine two key aspects of Evgeny Preobrazhensky s concept of primitive socialist accumulation : the notions that (a) the essential differences between socialism and capitalism are nationalised property and economic planning and that (b) a transition from capitalism to socialism can take place through the extension of nationalised property and economic planning,Drawing on the work of Karl Marx and Raya Dunayevskaya I will argue first that state property and economic planning are not the essential differences and second that Preobrazhensky s conception is one example of the view that political and legal changes are the determining factors in social change,That view I will contend inverts Marx s conception according to which political and legal relations correspond to and are determined by the mode of production not vice-versa,If this latter view is accepted I will further argue the idea of a transitional society between capitalism and socialism is incoherent,This does not mean that social transformation must be instantaneous what it means is that socialism cannot exist partly or wholly until the mode of production is revolutionised and that this cannot take place by political and or legal means,
There could not be a sharper analytical difference between Andrew Kliman and I on how we understand the trajectory of U.S. capital and U.S. labour over the quarter century leading to the Great Financial Crisis. He sees it as a period of “secular stagnation” – i.e. protracted low growth – while I argue, along with my co-author Leo Panitch, that it has been one of the most dynamic eras for capital in American history.[1] He views the alleged stagnation of that period as rooted in a profitability crisis that was temporarily masked by a credit bubble, which allowed the U.S. economy to limp on until it burst. We argue that corporate profits have in general not been squeezed and that the role of finance in creating the conditions for the crisis went far beyond advancing credit. He sees labour as largely holding its own over this period; we understand labour as having suffered a most profound defeat.
There could not be a sharper analytical difference between Andrew Kliman and I on how we understand the trajectory of US capital and US labour over the quarter century leading to the Great Financial Crisis. He sees it as a period of ‘secular stagnation’—i.e. protracted low growth—while I argue, along with my co-author Leo Panitch, that it has been one of the most dynamic eras for capital in American history.[1] He views the alleged stagnation of that period as rooted in a profitability crisis that was temporarily masked by a credit bubble, which allowed the US economy to limp on until it burst. We argue that corporate profits have in general not been squeezed and that the role of finance in creating the conditions for the crisis went far beyond advancing credit. He sees labour as largely holding its own over this period; we understand labour as having suffered a most profound defeat.
Most leftists today hold that the economic crisis of 2007 and the consequent doldrums are the result of neoliberalism–that is the result of a conscious attack on the working classes by the ruling elite. The story goes this way: The capitalists saw that the productive part of the economy empowered workers and opted to slow investment in real productive activity as a political project to undermine the working class. Wage suppression was another aspect of what was an assault on workers.
This roundtable discussed Andrew Kliman's just-published article[1], which exposes multiple errors in Fred Magdoff and John Bellamy Foster's "Class War and Labor's Declining Share," the cover-story article in the March 2013 issue of _Monthly Review_.
To get content containing either thought or leadership enter:
To get content containing both thought and leadership enter:
To get content containing the expression thought leadership enter:
You can enter several keywords and you can refine them whenever you want. Our suggestion engine uses more signals but entering a few keywords here will rapidly give you great content to curate.