Academic literature on the topic 'Underconsumptionism'

In a review of our work, Kincaid suggests that we are 'productivist', reducing interpretation of Marx and capitalism to production at the expense of the relatively independent role that can be played by the value-form in general and by the money-form in particular. In response, we argue that he distorts interpretation of our work through this prism of production versus exchange, unduly emphasises the independence of exchange to the point of underconsumptionism, and simplistically collapses the mediation between production and exchange in the restructuring that accompanies the accumulation of capital.

ABSTRACT Worldwide devaluation races lead to the globalization of rent instead of profit and autonomy of civil society. This specific pattern of today’s globalization goes with serious underconsumptionist tendencies as self-sufficiency in wage goods production is achieved in economies with a very low marginal product of labour in agriculture and structural unemployment which disempowers all labour. The 19th century likewise intensive globalization was characterized by full employment tendencies, rising real wages and an expansion of the welfare state. A return to such a convoy model of globalization is possible through marginality reducing development policies for uplifting the poor in the South.

Whereas most previous and later discussions of Marx’s transformation of values into prices of production have focused on his mathematical procedure, Henryk Grossman addressed the logic of its place in the structure ofCapital. On this basis he criticised underconsumptionist and disproportionality theorists of economic crises for inappropriately basing their accounts on the level of analysis of the value schemas in the second volume ofCapital. Such a criticism cannot be made of Grossman’s and Marx’s explanation of systemic crises in terms of the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. Grossman’s article still provides insights into Marx’s analysis of capitalism and his theory of economic crises, unsurpassed in the subsequent literature.

The period between the depression of the 1930s and the long post-war boom saw the development of the contemporary shape of the labour movement's economic thought, with its dichotomy between moderate and left nationalist currents. This development is examined in terms of the nature of the main organisations of the labour movement, economic conditions, the ideological proclivities of different classes and the levelof the class struggle. The main areas of economic thought examined are theories of Australia's place in the world economy, the class anatomy of Australian capitalism and of economic crises. During the late 1930s laborites continued to express a longstanding commitment to national development through tariff protection and wariness of overseas loans. Moderate ideas of the possibilities for overcoming class conflicts increasingly displaced radical Money Power theory after the depression. While monetary and real underconsumptionism continued to be the main explanations of economic crises offered by laborites, both ALP politicians and union officials became aware of Keynesian economics and the legitimacy it provided for longstanding Labor policies. The advent of the Popular Front period in the international communist movement saw the Communist Party of Australia move from a revolutionary internationalist towards a politically more conservative left nationalist position, sharing assumptions with Money Power theorists, despite the rise in the level of industrial struggle. The Communist conviction in radical underconsumptionist theory of inevitable economic crises began to weaken. World War II and the advent of the Curtin Government saw the leadership of the ALP embrace Keynesian economics and its priorities. This was expressed in both foreign economic and domestic policies, but was qualified by a keen appreciation of the requirements of the Australian economy for both protection and foreign markets and the level of the class struggle. The promotion of Keynesian ideas and divisions in the labour movement was successful after 1947 in countering working class militancy. While retaining a fervent nationalism the Communist Party's policies shifted after the War from strong support for the Government during the War to a very radical and anti-American position after 1947. Bolstered by a return to radical underconsumptionism and a focus on the conspiratorial role of the Collins House monopolists, the Party believed it could challenge the authority of the ALP and the Chifley Government, on the basis of working class industrial struggles. But the Communist Party made its attempt when the level of united struggle was already in decline. Between 1949 and 1952 the balance of class forces shifted sharply in favour of capital. Moderate laborites have continued to accept the main propositions of orthodox economics, while the bulk of the left in the labour movement has been nationalist and, after the Communist Party's break with Moscow, committed to a version of Keynesian economics. Although the adequacy of both approaches to working class interests is in doubt and they have not consistently promoted its struggles, their hegemony over the labour movement has not prevented the emergence of militant working class action.