The Unmaking of Marx’s Capital: Heinrich’s Attempt to Eliminate Marx’s Crisis Theory

Nicholas Potts, Andrew Kliman, Alan Freeman, Alexey Gusev, Brendan Cooney

Research output: Working paper

Abstract

Michael Heinrich’s recent Monthly Review article claims that the law of the tendential fall in the rate of profit (LTFRP) was not proved by Marx and cannot be proved. Heinrich also argues that Marx had doubts about the law and that, for this and other other reasons, his theory of capitalist economic crisis was only provisional and more or less in continual flux.

This response shows that Heinrich’s elementary misunderstanding of the law –– his belief that it is meant to predict what must inevitably happen rather than to explain what does happen –– is the source of his charge that it is unproved. It then shows that a simple misreading of Marx’s text lies at the basis of Heinrich’s claim that the simplest version of the LTFRP, “the law as such,” is a failure. Marx’s argument that increases in the rate of surplus-value cannot “cancel” the fall in the rate of profit is then defended against Heinrich’s attempt to refute it. Finally, the paper presents evidence that Marx was indeed convinced that the LTFRP is correct and that he regarded the crisis theory of volume 3 of Capital as finished in a theoretical sense.
Original languageEnglish
PublisherSocial Science Research Network
Number of pages20
Publication statusPublished - 17 Jul 2013

Fingerprint

Rate of Profit
Karl Marx
Misreading
Economic Crisis
Surplus
Misunderstanding

Cite this

Potts, N., Kliman, A., Freeman, A., Gusev, A., & Cooney, B. (2013). The Unmaking of Marx’s Capital: Heinrich’s Attempt to Eliminate Marx’s Crisis Theory. Social Science Research Network.
Potts, Nicholas ; Kliman, Andrew ; Freeman, Alan ; Gusev, Alexey ; Cooney, Brendan. / The Unmaking of Marx’s Capital: Heinrich’s Attempt to Eliminate Marx’s Crisis Theory. Social Science Research Network, 2013.
@techreport{7dbd049bb9834e0ebd3e62cc60043e1b,
title = "The Unmaking of Marx’s Capital: Heinrich’s Attempt to Eliminate Marx’s Crisis Theory",
abstract = "Michael Heinrich’s recent Monthly Review article claims that the law of the tendential fall in the rate of profit (LTFRP) was not proved by Marx and cannot be proved. Heinrich also argues that Marx had doubts about the law and that, for this and other other reasons, his theory of capitalist economic crisis was only provisional and more or less in continual flux. This response shows that Heinrich’s elementary misunderstanding of the law –– his belief that it is meant to predict what must inevitably happen rather than to explain what does happen –– is the source of his charge that it is unproved. It then shows that a simple misreading of Marx’s text lies at the basis of Heinrich’s claim that the simplest version of the LTFRP, “the law as such,” is a failure. Marx’s argument that increases in the rate of surplus-value cannot “cancel” the fall in the rate of profit is then defended against Heinrich’s attempt to refute it. Finally, the paper presents evidence that Marx was indeed convinced that the LTFRP is correct and that he regarded the crisis theory of volume 3 of Capital as finished in a theoretical sense.",
author = "Nicholas Potts and Andrew Kliman and Alan Freeman and Alexey Gusev and Brendan Cooney",
note = "Note paper downloaded 308 times by December 2017",
year = "2013",
month = "7",
day = "17",
language = "English",
publisher = "Social Science Research Network",
type = "WorkingPaper",
institution = "Social Science Research Network",

}

Potts, N, Kliman, A, Freeman, A, Gusev, A & Cooney, B 2013 'The Unmaking of Marx’s Capital: Heinrich’s Attempt to Eliminate Marx’s Crisis Theory' Social Science Research Network.

The Unmaking of Marx’s Capital: Heinrich’s Attempt to Eliminate Marx’s Crisis Theory. / Potts, Nicholas; Kliman, Andrew; Freeman, Alan ; Gusev, Alexey; Cooney, Brendan.

Social Science Research Network, 2013.

Research output: Working paper

TY - UNPB

T1 - The Unmaking of Marx’s Capital: Heinrich’s Attempt to Eliminate Marx’s Crisis Theory

AU - Potts, Nicholas

AU - Kliman, Andrew

AU - Freeman, Alan

AU - Gusev, Alexey

AU - Cooney, Brendan

N1 - Note paper downloaded 308 times by December 2017

PY - 2013/7/17

Y1 - 2013/7/17

N2 - Michael Heinrich’s recent Monthly Review article claims that the law of the tendential fall in the rate of profit (LTFRP) was not proved by Marx and cannot be proved. Heinrich also argues that Marx had doubts about the law and that, for this and other other reasons, his theory of capitalist economic crisis was only provisional and more or less in continual flux. This response shows that Heinrich’s elementary misunderstanding of the law –– his belief that it is meant to predict what must inevitably happen rather than to explain what does happen –– is the source of his charge that it is unproved. It then shows that a simple misreading of Marx’s text lies at the basis of Heinrich’s claim that the simplest version of the LTFRP, “the law as such,” is a failure. Marx’s argument that increases in the rate of surplus-value cannot “cancel” the fall in the rate of profit is then defended against Heinrich’s attempt to refute it. Finally, the paper presents evidence that Marx was indeed convinced that the LTFRP is correct and that he regarded the crisis theory of volume 3 of Capital as finished in a theoretical sense.

AB - Michael Heinrich’s recent Monthly Review article claims that the law of the tendential fall in the rate of profit (LTFRP) was not proved by Marx and cannot be proved. Heinrich also argues that Marx had doubts about the law and that, for this and other other reasons, his theory of capitalist economic crisis was only provisional and more or less in continual flux. This response shows that Heinrich’s elementary misunderstanding of the law –– his belief that it is meant to predict what must inevitably happen rather than to explain what does happen –– is the source of his charge that it is unproved. It then shows that a simple misreading of Marx’s text lies at the basis of Heinrich’s claim that the simplest version of the LTFRP, “the law as such,” is a failure. Marx’s argument that increases in the rate of surplus-value cannot “cancel” the fall in the rate of profit is then defended against Heinrich’s attempt to refute it. Finally, the paper presents evidence that Marx was indeed convinced that the LTFRP is correct and that he regarded the crisis theory of volume 3 of Capital as finished in a theoretical sense.

M3 - Working paper

BT - The Unmaking of Marx’s Capital: Heinrich’s Attempt to Eliminate Marx’s Crisis Theory

PB - Social Science Research Network

ER -

Potts N, Kliman A, Freeman A, Gusev A, Cooney B. The Unmaking of Marx’s Capital: Heinrich’s Attempt to Eliminate Marx’s Crisis Theory. Social Science Research Network. 2013 Jul 17.