Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T04:27:14.649Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Implication for Socialism of Marx's Theory of the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Extract

It is clear from the enormous literature on the subject that Karl Marx believed that his law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is applicable only to the capitalist mode of production. Is there, however, really anything in the law which confines it specifically to capitalist production? This is an important question which is not asked in an explicit manner in the literature on Marx's economics. His most important law or tendency about the internal contradictions of capitalist production might turn out to be a characteristic of production per se—including socialist production in its ideal form.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Cohen, G. A. 1978. Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Englis, Karel. 1946. An Essay on Economic Systems: A Teleological Approach; translated by Ivo, Moravcik, East European Monographs, Boulder, 1986.Google Scholar
Gordon, David M. 1976. “Capitalist Efficiency and Socialist Efficiency,” Monthly Review, 24, no. 3, 1939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, David M. 1981. “Labor-Capital Conflict and the Productivity Slowdown,” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 71, no. 2, 3035.Google Scholar
Harvey, P. 1985. “The Value-Creating Capacity of Skilled Labor in Marxian Economics,” Review of Radical Political Economics, 17, no. 1/2, 83102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, Geoff. 1974. “The Theory of the Falling Rate of Profit,” New Left Review, 84, 5282.Google Scholar
James, C. L. R. 1950. “The Class Struggle,” in The C.L.R. James Reader, edited by Anna, Grimshaw, Blackwell, Oxford, 190201, 1992.Google Scholar
Khalil, Elias. 1990. “Rationality and Social Labor in Marx,” Critical Review, 4, nos. 1 and 2, 239–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khalil, Elias. 1992a. “Marx's Understanding of the Essence of Capitalism,” History of Economics Review, 17, 1932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khalil, Elias. 1992b. “Nature and Abstract Labor in Marx,” Social Concept, 6, no. 2, 91117.Google Scholar
Khalil, Elias. 1992c. “Was Marx a Political Economist (or just an Economist)? Class Power in Relation to the Entry Points of Capital,” Methodus: Bulletin of the International Network for Economic Method, 4, no. 1, 3543.Google Scholar
Kay, Geoffrey. 1975. Development and Underdevelopment: A Marxist Analysis, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Keen, S. 1993a. “Use-Value, Exchange-Value, and the Demise of Marx's Labor Theory of Value,” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 15, Spring, 107121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keen, S. 1993b. “The Misinterpretation of Marx's Theory of Value,” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 15, Winter, 282289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, David P. 1988. Needs, Rights, and the Market, Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder and London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marglin, Stephen A. 1974. “What Do Bosses Do? The Origins and Functions of Hierarchy in Capitalist Production, Part 1,” Review of Radical Political Economics, 6, 60112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, John S. 1899. Principles of Political Economy, 1, The Colonial Press, New York.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1968. Theories of Surplus Value, part 2, Progress, Moscow.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1971. Theories of Surplus Value, part 3, Progress, Moscow.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1973. Grundrisse; translated by Martin, Nicholaus, Vintage, New York.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1974. The First International and After, Vintage, New York.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1976. Capital, 1, Penguin and New Left Books, London.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1978. Capital, 2, Penguin and New Left Books, London.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1981. Capital, 3, Penguin and New Left Books, London.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl and Engels, F.. 1975. Selected Correspondence, Progress, Moscow.Google Scholar
Moseley, Fred. 1991. The Falling Rate of Profit in the Postwar United States Economy, St. Martins Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okishio, Nobuo. 1961. “Technical Change and the Rate of Profit,” Kobe University Economic Review, 7, 8599.Google Scholar
Parijs, Philippe van. 1980. “The Falling-Rate-of-Profit Theory of Crisis: A Rational Reconstruction by Way of Obituary,” Review of Radical Political Economy, 12, no. 1, 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Joan. 1960. An Essay in Marxian Economics, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Robinson, Joan. 1962. Economic Philosophy: An Essay on the Progress of Economic Thought, Anchor Books, New York.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Nathan. 1974. “Karl Marx on the Economic Role of Science,” Journal of Political Economy, 82, 713–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Nathan. 1976. “Marx as a Student of Technology,” Monthly Review, 28, 5677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schefold, Bertram. 1976. “Different Forms of Technical Progress,” Economic Journal, 86, 806–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaikh, Anwar. 1978. “Political Economy and Capitalism: Notes on Dobb's Theory of Crisis,” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2, 233–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, William H. 1978. Marx's Theory of History, Stanford University Press, Standord.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, Ian. 1977. Marx after Sraffa, New Left Books, London.Google Scholar
Sweezy, Paul M. 1942. The Theory of Capitalist Development, Monthly Review Press, New York.Google Scholar
WolffEdward, N. Edward, N. 1986. “The Productivity Slowdown and the Fall in the Rate of Profit, 1947–1976,” Review of Radical Political Economics, 18, nos. 1 and 2, 87109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WolffEdward, N. Edward, N. 1987. Growth, Accumulation and Unproductive Activity: An Analysis of the Postwar U.S. Economy, Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar