Search results

Abstract
Characterisations of Henryk Grossman as a theorist of capitalism's automatic collapse and political passivity are false. Even before the publication of his principal work, Grossman had linked his recovery of Marx's account of capitalism's tendency to break down to his own, interventionist, Leninist politics. This is apparent in his substantial critique of Fritz Sternberg's influential 1926 book, Imperialism. Grossman's article (DOI 10.1163/1569206X-12341756) also restates fundamental aspects of Marx's value theory, class analysis and account of wages.

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.

At the centre of Marx's critique of bourgeois economics and his own approach to understanding capitalism's anatomy and laws of motion was the dialectic between the use value and value of commodities. After decades of neglect, Henryk Grossman2 insisted on this aspect of the revolutionary core of Marx's analysis. Marx had identified scientific content and weaknesses in the work of the classical political economists and its subsequent degeneration through three phases of vulgar economics. Grossman revisited Marx's critique and extended it to the latest, sophisticated and sophistical, versions of vulgar economics' final phase, marginalist economics which is today popularly known as 'economics'.

Between 1996 and 2007, the Howard Government used racism to sustain its popularity. From the late 1990s, the primary victims of racist campaigns against immigrants were refugees who arrived by boat, without official permission. After 9/11 2001 the focus increasingly shifted to Muslims and Arabs, who were more explicitly targeted from 2005. While the conservative parties' racist policies served electoral purposes, their campaigns were also shaped by a deeper logic: the interests of the capitalist class and its capacity to influence state policies. The declining appeal of racist arguments and policies contributed to the Government's demise in 2007.

Between 1996 and 2007, the Howard Government used racism to sustain its popularity. From the late 1990s, the primary victims of racist campaigns against immigrants were refugees who arrived by boat, without official permission. After 9/11 2001 the focus increasingly shifted to Muslims and Arabs, who were more explicitly targeted from 2005. While the conservative parties' racist policies served electoral purposes, their campaigns were also shaped by a deeper logic: the interests of the capitalist class and its capacity to influence state policies. The declining appeal of racist arguments and policies contributed to the Government's demise in 2007.

AbstractIn his essay, Henryk Grossman made a powerful case for the continued relevance of Marxist economics. He argued thatCapitalis a fundamentally coherent whole, structured by Marx's method of moving systematically from more abstract to more concrete levels of analysis. Despite considerable subsequent debate and research, Grossman's account remains the outstanding contribution to our understanding of this aspect of Marx's principal work.

This chapter examines the attitudes of the Jewish Social Democratic Party of Galicia (the Austrian-occupied province of partitioned Poland) to Zionism between 1905 and 1920.

AbstractHenryk Grossman's discussion of economic crises was designed to complement his Leninist understanding of politics. For Grossman, as for Marx, the fundamental contradiction of capitalist production is between the unlimited scope for expanding the output of use-values and restrictions imposed by the framework of producing profits. The increasing weight of capitalists' outlays on dead compared to living labour, which is the only source of new value, gives rise to the system's tendency to break down and, hence, to economic crises. Deep financial crises can only be understood in the context of developments in production and particularly movements in the rate of profit. The initial widespread hostility to Grossman's development of Marxist economics can mainly be explained in terms of the logics of Social-Democratic and Stalinist politics. In contrast to dominant views on the Left today, the Marxist tradition in which Grossman stood places the construction of organisations capable of assisting the working class' conquest of political power at the heart of the responsibility of socialists. Grossman's political practice expressed his understanding of the close relationship between capitalism's breakdown tendency and the importance of building a revolutionary party.

Henryk Grossman was the first person to systematically explore Marx's explanation of capitalist crises in terms of the tendency for the rate of profit to fall and to place it in the context of the distinction between use and exchange value. His The law of accumulation and breakdown of the capitalist system remains an important reference point in the Marxist literature on economic crises. That literature has been plagued by distortions of Grossman's position which derive from early hostile reviews of his book. These accused Grossman of a mechanical approach to the end of capitalism and of neglecting factors which boost profit rates. Grossman, in fact, contributed a complementary economic element to the recovery of Marxism undertaken by Lenin (particularly in the area of Marxist politics) and Lukács (in philosophy). In both published and unpublished work, Grossman also dealt with and even anticipated criticisms of his methodology and treatment of countertendencies to the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. Far from being mechanical, his economic analysis can still assist the struggle for working class self-emancipation.

Henryk Grossman's discussion of economic crises was designed to complement his Leninist understanding of politics. For Grossman, as for Marx, the fundamental contradiction of capitalist production is between the unlimited scope for expanding the output of use values and restrictions imposed by the framework of producing profits. The increasing weight of capitalists' outlays on dead compared to living labour, which is the only source of new value, gives rise to the system's tendency to break down and hence to economic crises. Deep financial crises can only be understood in the context of developments in production and particularly movements in the rate of profit. The initial widespread hostility to Grossman's development of Marxist economics can mainly be explained in terms of the logics of social democratic and Stalinist politics. In contrast to dominant views on the left today, the Marxist tradition in which Grossman stood places the construction of organisations capable of assisting the working class's conquest of political power at the heart of the responsibility of socialists. Grossman's political practice expressed his understanding of the close relationship between capitalism's breakdown tendency and the importance of building a revolutionary party.

Henryk Grossman's discussion of economic crises was designed to complement his Leninist understanding of politics. For Grossman, as for Marx, the fundamental contradiction of capitalist production is between the unlimited scope for expanding the output of use values and restrictions imposed by the framework of producing profits. The increasing weight of capitalists' outlays on dead compared to living labour, which is the only source of new value, gives rise to the system's tendency to break down and hence to economic crises. Deep financial crises can only be understood in the context of developments in production and particularly movements in the rate of profit. The initial widespread hostility to Grossman's development of Marxist economics can mainly be explained in terms of the logics of social democratic and Stalinist politics. In contrast to dominant views on the left today, the Marxist tradition in which Grossman stood places the construction of organisations capable of assisting the working class's conquest of political power at the heart of the responsibility of socialists. Grossman's political practice expressed his understanding of the close relationship between capitalism's breakdown tendency and the importance of building a revolutionary party.

Henryk Grossman's discussion of economic crises was designed to complement his Leninist understanding of politics. For Grossman, as for Marx, the fundamental contradiction of capitalist production is between the unlimited scope for expanding the output of use values and restrictions imposed by the framework of producing profits. The increasing weight of capitalists' outlays on dead compared to living labour, which is the only source of new value, gives rise to the system's tendency to break down and hence to economic crises. Deep financial crises can only be understood in the context of developments in production and particularly movements in the rate of profit. The initial widespread hostility to Grossman's development of Marxist economics can mainly be explained in terms of the logics of social democratic and Stalinist politics. In contrast to dominant views on the left today, the Marxist tradition in which Grossman stood places the construction of organisations capable of assisting the working class's conquest of political power at the heart of the responsibility of socialists. Grossman's political practice expressed his understanding of the close relationship between capitalism's breakdown tendency and the importance of building a revolutionary party.