John Bellamy Foster

Category: Journal Articles (Refereed)

Journal Articles (Refereed)

  • The Age of Planetary Crisis

    “The Age of Planetary Crisis: The Unsustainable Development of Capitalism” (in special issue on “The Future of Capitalism”),” [PDF], Review of Radical Political Economics, vol. 29, no. 4 (Fall 1997), pp. 113-42. DOI: 10.1177/048661349702900406

    The final years of the twentieth century have revealed three critical conditions likely to dominate the history of the coming century: (1) economic stagnation and globalization; (2) environmental decline; and (3) the weakness of antisystemic movements. As economic conditions stagnate and environmental conditions worsen, the material bases will emerge for a new, much broader movement of global resistance; one in which the struggle of labor vs. capital will be joined with the struggle of life vs. capital.

    Translations:
    • Spanish translation, “La Era de la Crisis Planetaria: El Desarrollo Insostenible del Capitalismo,” Economía Politica, no. 15 (September-October 1997), pp. 31-52.

  • The Long Stagnation and the Class Struggle

    “The Long Stagnation and the Class Struggle” [PDF], Journal of Economic Issues, vol. 31, no. 2 (June 1997), pp. 445-51. (Included among select papers published from the Association of Evolutionary Economics, 1997 Annual Meeting.)

    For more than a quarter-century, the advanced capitalist economies have been mired in a condition of economic stagnation, characterized by slow growth, sluggish investment and high levels of unemployment and excess capacity. Since this condition has persisted so long and shows no signs of abating despite the current cyclical upswing, it seems appropriate to label it the “Long Stagnation,” thus distinguishing it from other periods of stagnation, most notably the “Great Depression” of the 1930s.

  • The Limits of Environmentalism Without Class: Lessons from the Ancient Forest Crisis of the Pacific Northwest

    “The Limits of Environmentalism Without Class: Lessons from the Ancient Forest Crisis of the Pacific Northwest,” [PDF], Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, vol. 4, no. 1 (March 1993), pp. 11-41. DOI: 10.1080/10455759309358529.

    Many prominent environmentalists today have adopted a political stance that sets them and the movement that they profess to represent above and beyond the class struggle. For example, Jonathon Porritt, the British Green leader, has declared that the rise of the German Greens marks the demise of “the redundant polemic of class warfare and the mythical immutability of a left/right divide.” According to this outlook, both the working class and capitalist class are to blame for the global environmental crisis (insofar as it can be traced to capitalist rather than socialist modes of production), while the Greens represent a “new paradigm” derived from nature’s own values, one that transcends the historic class problem. By removing themselves in this way from the classic social debate, these Green thinkers implicitly em race the dominant “we have seen the enemy, and it is us” view that traces most environmental problems to the buying habits of consumers, the number of babies born, and the characteristics of industrialization, as if there were no class or other divisions in society.

    Reprints
    • Published in 1993 as a pamphlet issued jointly by Monthly Review Press and the Center for Ecological Socialism.
    • Expanded and updated version published in Daniel Faber, ed. The Movement for Environmental Justice in the United States (New York: Guilford Press, 1998), pp. 188-217.
    Translations
    • Italian translation of original, “I Limiti Dellámbientalismo Senza Classi. Un Esempio Che Viene Dalle Foreste,” Capitalismo, Natura, Socialismo, no. 9 (October 1993) pp. 32-53.

  • The Absolute General Law of Environmental Degradation Under Capitalism

    “The Absolute General Law of Environmental Degradation Under Capitalism,” [PDF] Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, vol. 3, no. 3 (September 1992), pp. 77-82. DOI:10.1080/10455759209358504

    James O’Connor has asked us to consider the relationship between what he has termed the “first and second contradictions” of capitalism. I would like to refer to the first contradiction, following Marx, as ‘the absolute cereal law of capitalist accumulation.” The second contradiction may then be designated as “the absolute general law of environmental degradation under capitalism.” It is characteristic of capitalism that the second of these “absolute general laws” derives its momentum from the first; hence it is impossible to overthrow the second without overthrowing the first. Nevertheless, it is the second contradiction rather than the first that increasingly constitutes the most obvious threat not only to capitalism existence but to the life of the planet as a whole.

    Translations:
    • Translated and published in Spanish as “La Ley General Absoluta de la Degradacion Ambiental en el Capitalismo,” Ecología Politica (September 1992), pp. 167-73.
    • Spanish translation later reprinted in Economía Politica, no. 11, Jan.-Feb. 1997.
    • Translated and published in Italian as “La Legge Assoluta, Generale del Degrado Ambientale nel Capitalismo,” Capitalismo, Natura, Socialismo, no. 6 (November 1992).

  • 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.

  • 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: