John Bellamy Foster

Category: Articles

Articles

  • A Turn to Reality

    A Turn to Reality

    “A Turn to Reality,” (John Bellamy Foster) Monthly Review, vol. 38, no. 5 (October 1986), pp. 56-64. DOI: 10.14452/MR-038-05-1986-09_7

    Review of Economics Without Equilibrium by Nicholas Kaldor.

    It would be impossible to discover a much greater gap between what poses as a modern scientific tradition and the underlying reality that it purports to explain than that which is currently dis- closed by neoclassical economics. Indeed, “within today’s standard economic theory, which is commonly called the neoclassical synthesis,” as Hyman Minsky has observed in his new book, Stabilizing an Unstable Economy, “the question ‘why is our economy so unstable?’ is … a nonsense question. Standard economic theory not only does not lead to an explanation of instability as a system attribute, it really does not recognize that endogenous instability is a problem that a satisfactory theory must explain.”

     

  • The Political Economy of the United States Left

    The Political Economy of the United States Left

    “The Political Economy of The United States Left,” Monthly Review, vol. 38, no. 4 (September 1986), pp. 42-50. DOI: 10.14452/MR-038-04-1986-08_5

    Review of Radical Political Economy Since the Sixties: A Sociology of Knowledge Analysis by Paul Attewell.

    Twenty years ago, when Monopoly Capital by Baran and Sweezy first appeared, there were only a handful of Marxian political economists in the U.S. But the escalating invasion of Vietnam, the popular resistance movement that grew up in response, and the worsening conditions of economic crisis that came with the winding down of the war changed all of that. By the mid-1970s radical political economy had grown into a vast and sprawling multi-disciplinary effort, cutting across the boundaries of economics, political science, sociology and history. Yet such rapid growth was not without its contradictions. Indeed, in the 1980s it seems clear that the “new political economy” of the U.S. left is torn by contradictory developments, while showing comparatively few signs at present of further development through contradiction.

     

  • Sources of Instability in the U.S. Political Economy and Empire

    “Sources of Instability in the U.S. Political Economy and Empire,” [PDF] Science & Society, vol. XLIX, no. 2 (Summer 1985), pp. 167-193.

    In Discussing the sources of instability in the U.S. social order, it is useful to focus successively on the economic, political-cultural and imperial aspects of the problem, corresponding to the three levels of economy, state and world economy. This does not mean that these factors can be sealed off from one another, or that there is some kind of strict causal relationship running from the economic to the political to the international aspects of the current impasse. The interconnection, as I hope to demonstrate, is a dialectical one; which in the present context means that is is difficult to assign historical priority to any single dimension of the basic dilemma, or to neatly separate one manifestation of the overall disorder from another. “The social process,” as Joseph Schumpeter wrote in the introduction to The Theory of Economic Development, “is really one indivisible whole.” If anything, this becomes even more apparent in times of deepening crisis.

     

     

  • Monopoly Capital Theory and Stagflation: A Comment

    “Monopoly Capital Theory and Stagflation: A Comment,” [PDF], Review of Radical Political Economics, vol. 17, nos. 1 and 2 (Spring and Summer 1985), pp. 221-25.
    DOI: 10.1177/048661348501700113 

    In my view, David Kotz’s article, ‘Monopoly. Inflation and Economic Crisis” (Kotz 1982), provides a clear and, for the most part, internally consistent explanation of the inflationary features of monpolistic pricing in the context of long-term economic stagnation, and deserves to be recognized as a notable addition to Marxian analysis. But his claim of having constructed a “new theory” (1982: 7) demands critical comment of a fraternal kind for two reasons: (1) It downplays the extent to which Kotz’s argument merely expresses the main tendency of neo-Marxian monopoly capital theory, as previously developed by Michal Kalecki, Josef Steindl, Paul Baran, Paul Sweezy, Paolo Sylos-Labini and Howard Sherman, among others (see Foster and Szlajfer 1984); (2) Kotz’s own contribution is not diminished, but only enhanced, when seen in terms of his larger historical tradition.

  • On the Waterfront: Longshoring in Canada

    “On the Waterfront: Longshoring in Canada,” in Craig Heron and Bob Storey, ed. On the Job: The Labour Process in Canada (Montreal: McGill-Queens Press, 1985), pp. 281-308.

    The words, “On the Waterfront,” for most people carry an air of mystery and suspense, vaguely evoking images of Marlon Brando and the New York harbor of the early 1950’s. But the sense of otherworldliness that clings to the longshore labour process goes far beyond its history of exploitation and violence, and arises instead out of the very nature of work relations. As one authority has put it, “the conditions of ‘boom and bust’ that determine the daily life of the world’s ports have produced a labour jungle that few laymen have ever penetrated.” To a greater extent than in most industries, long shoring has been shaped not by managerial imperatives, but by the imperatives of the workers themselves. It has, therefore, been characterized by a pattern of development that sets it apart from all other workplace environments. What has been true in the past, however, may or may not be true in the future.

  • The Political Economy of Joseph Schumpeter

    “The Political Economy of Joseph Schumpeter: A Theory of Capitalist Development and Decline,” [PDF], Studies in Political Economy, no. 15 (Fall 1984), pp. 5-42.

    The name of Joseph Schumpeter is still a prominent one in the social sciences. He was undoubtedly one of the leading economists of his generation. That by itself would have been enough to ensure him lasting fame, yet his importance as a social theorist extends far beyond that which is attributable simply to his performance as an economist. Unlike most economists, Schumpeter coupled his economic analysis with an historical outlook. The bulk of his immense theoretical con- tribution was directed toward an investigation into entrepreneurial capitalism as a transitory, historical phenomenon. This analysis of the growth of capitalism was tied to both a general theory of social classes and a detailed inquiry into the nature and function of the capitalist class. Nevertheless, while it is generally conceded that Schumpeter had a unified vision of the social process, few attempts have been made to examine his overall theory as a systematic whole.

  • Understanding the Significance of the Great Depression

    “Understanding the Significance of the Great Depression” [PDF], Studies in Political Economy, no. 11 (Summer 1983), pp. 177-196.

    Only a few years ago it was an article of faith among most orthodox economists that the Great Depression of the 1930s was an unaccountable deviation from the natural course of capitalist evolution. They also thought that any further repetition of severe economic distress was inconceivable in the age of informed macroeconomic policy. Even now, establishment theorists continue to hold out against the notion that stagnation can be traced to the underlying pattern of advanced accumulation; but even the most active defenders of the status quo are no longer inclined to be entirely dismissive of the view that secular stagnation is the characteristic state of modern capitalism. Hence, the historical meaning of the Great Depression has once again become a major subject of interest, and there are signs that some of the long-forgotten legacy of criticism and debate by economic theorists of the 1930s is being rediscovered, with the sudden rebirth of open class struggle over the problem of chronic underemployment.

  • Theories of Capitalist Transformation

    “Theories of Capitalist Transformation- Critical Notes on the Comparison of Marx and Schumpeter,” [PDF], Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. XCVIII, no. 2 (May 1983), pp. 327-33l.

    John E. Elliott’s [1980] article on some of the parallels between the visions of capitalist transformation to be found in Marx and Schumpeter is extremely insofar as it requires a serious reexamination of the Schumpeterian system. Elliott’s argument, however, is somewhat misleading, since it overemphasizes the points at which their theories overlap, while largely neglecting the very crucial differences in “intentions and results” [Schumpeter, 1951, pp. 158-61]. It is nearly always a vain endeavor to attempt to analyze the often complex interconnections between economic theorists, while adopting the simple framework of an either-or of similarities and differences. The inadequacy of such a method is particularly evident in a case where the theorists being considered are each deservedly famous for their “dialectical imagination.”

  • Marxian Economics and the State

    “Marxian Economics and the State,” Science & Society, vol. XLVI, no. 3 (Fall 1982), pp. 257-283.

    How can we account for the somewhat paradoxical fact that certain socialist models of the capitalist economy are often thought to be prone to political degeneration? In essence, there are four divisions among Marxist on the subject of crisis: (1) the falling rate of profit school, (2) disproportionality theory, (3) underconsumptionism, and (4) profit squeeze analysis. All but the first of these have been classified, at one time or another, as vulnerable to reformist contamination. This ceases to be puzzling once one discovers that each of the last three approaches has some resemblance to a distinct strand within establishment economics.

    Reprints:

  • Is Monopoly Capitalism An Illusion?

    “Is Monopoly Capitalism An Illusion?”, Monthly Review vol. 33, no. 4 (September 1981), pp. 36-47. DOI: 10.14452/MR-033-04-1981-08_3

    The theory of capitalism’s monopoly stage has had such a long and distinguished history that one could be excused for thinking of it as an established and non-controversial component of Marxian political economy. Indeed, the “neo-Marxian” theory of secular stagnation which developed out of the analysis of monopoly capital—notably, in the work of Micha Kalecki, Josef Steindl, and Baran and Sweezy—seems to have its direct confirmation in the current crisis of American and world capitalism. Quite recently, some of the “free-thinkers” among liberal economists, such as Lester Thurow, John Kenneth Galbraith, and Robert Heilbroner, have somewhat reluctantly added their voices to the diagnosis that capitalism is facing the possibility of long-term economic stagnation (which is also seen as posing a major theoretical crisis for establishment economics). Yet, at a time when nearly all of the conclusions of monopoly capital theory are finding dramatic support in the winds of historical change, the very notion of monopoly capitalism, and the entire Marxian heritage associated with it, is increasingly being “struck down from the rear” by radical theorists who claim to be more orthodox than Engels or Lenin.