<\/p>\n
Critique de Michael Heinrich par \u00ab\u00a0l’\u00e9cole keyn\u00e9sienne\u00a0\u00bb:<\/p>\n
Michael Heinrich\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
This response shows that Heinrich\u2019s elementary misunderstanding of the law \u2013\u2013 his belief that it is meant to predict what must inevitably happen rather than to explain what does happen \u2013\u2013 is the source of his charge that it is unproved. It then shows that a simple misreading of Marx\u2019s text lies at the basis of Heinrich\u2019s claim that the simplest version of the LTFRP, \u201cthe law as such,\u201d is a failure. Marx\u2019s argument that increases in the rate of surplus-value cannot \u201ccancel\u201d the fall in the rate of profit is then defended against Heinrich\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
Lien vers le pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Critique de Michael Heinrich par \u00ab\u00a0l’\u00e9cole keyn\u00e9sienne\u00a0\u00bb: Michael Heinrich\u2019s 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 … Continuer la lecture