<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[A Critique of Crisis Theory]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[critiqueofcrisistheory]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com/author/critiqueofcrisistheory/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Are Marx and Keynes Compatible Pt&nbsp;8]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p><strong>Sweezy attempts to develop a theory of crises in &#8216;Theory of Capitalist Development&#8217; </strong></p>
<p>In &#8220;Monopoly Capital,&#8221; Sweezy (and Baran) treated crises and the  industrial cycle only in passing. In contrast, in &#8220;The Theory of  Capitalist Development&#8221; Sweezy examined Marxist crisis theory in  considerable detail. Even today, &#8220;The Theory of Capitalist Development&#8221;  can be recommended for anybody interested in the development of Marxist  crisis theory in the first part of the 20th century.</p>
<p>In his survey, Sweezey examined the writings of such Marxists as  Kautsky, Hilferding, Rosa Luxemburg and Henryk Grossman. Sweezy found  essentially three crisis theories among these early 20th-century  Marxists.</p>
<p>One was put forward by Karl Kautksy around the turn of the 20th  century. It involved the question of whether capitalism was evolving  toward a state of chronic depression.</p>
<p>What is sometimes called the &#8220;Great Depression&#8221; of 1873-1896 had  come to an end, and the world capitalist economy was entering a phase of  rapid economic expansion. According to Kautsky, it was the existence of  agrarian markets still dominated by pre-capitalist simple commodity  production that explained capitalism&#8217;s continued ability to grow.</p>
<p>However, as capitalism continued to develop, these markets would be  expected to decline in importance and the world capitalist economy  would, if socialist revolution did not intervene, sink into a state of  more or less permanent depression. This would mark the end of  capitalism&#8217;s ability to develop the productive forces of humanity.</p>
<p>Therefore, according to Kautsky, the cyclical crises and their  associated depressions were heralds of the approaching state of  permanent depression. As such, they were reminders that capitalist  production was historically limited and would inevitably give way to a  higher mode of production.</p>
<p>Later, in 1912, Rosa Luxemburg attempted to prove Kautsky&#8217;s  turn-of-the-century views in a rigorous way in her &#8220;Accumulation of  Capital.&#8221; Luxemburg believed that she had indeed proven that assuming  that all production is capitalist—that is, there are no more simple  commodity producers—expanded capitalist reproduction would be a  mathematical impossibility. And remember that according to Marx  capitalism can only exist as expanded reproduction.</p>
<p><a href="https://critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com/responses-to-readers%E2%80%94austrian-economics-versus-marxism/are-keynes-and-marx-compatible/are-marx-and-keynes-compatible-pt-8/">Read more &#8230;</a></p>
]]></html></oembed>