[OPE-L] Anton Pannekoek's refutation of Henryk Grossman

From: Jurriaan Bendien (adsl675281@TISCALI.NL)
Date: Tue Apr 24 2007 - 13:37:30 EDT

OK if  "refutation" is too strong a word, let's drop that. But I disagree
with Grossman as I already said (though not mainly for the reasons Pannekoek
gives) and I also disagree with the interpretation that Marx's
overaccumulation refers only to the overaccumulation of constant capital in

Grossman, Mattick and authors like that are a bit vague about whether crises
are caused by insufficient surplus-value creation, or whether they are
caused by the inability to re-invest the additional surplus-value realised
at a profit. But essentially Grossman's idea is that in the end the crisis
is due to insufficient surplus-value creation, i.e. insufficient surplus
value is created to valorise the total stock of production capital.

It would be very difficult to find empirical proofs corroborating different
interpretations of this argument. Maybe we can observe that the total profit
volume in money-prices falls, but there could be many different reasons why
it falls.

As I have pointed out before, the value of the stock of physical assets
existing external to production by itself is larger than the physical stock
of production capital in the advanced capitalist countries. In addition
there also exists a very large stock of money capital. Consequently, any
theory of accumulation which narrowly focuses on production capital misses
two-thirds of the story.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 30 2007 - 00:00:17 EDT