Talk:Crisis theory

Definition of Crisis

A crisis is any situation for which a person does not have adequate coping skills. Therefore, crisis is self-defined. What is a crisis for one person may not be a crisis for another person. Crises may range from seemingly minor situations, such as not being prepared for class, to major life changes, such as death or divorce. Crisis is environmentally based. What is now a crisis may not have been a crisis before or would not be a crisis in a different setting.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.99.140.118 (talk • contribs)

"M:L" stands for...? — ク Eloc 貢 03:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Probable merge candidate with Crisis (Marxian). 71.186.179.146 (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, proposing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately merging crisis theory into Crisis (Marxian) would only be correct if the only theory of economic crisis was the Marxian one. However there are factions within mainstream economists, or radical elements within the mainstream, who see crisis on non-Marxist lines (eg Minsky theorists).

There is insufficient commonality between the marxist and non-marxist crisis theories for such merging.

[[[User:Wilcannia|Wilcannia]] (talk)] —Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC).

This article is written about the Marxian theory of econmomic crisis. Whether an article about crisis theories could be written is an interesting question, but this isn't a start. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The merge tag leads to the talk page on the other article so please continue the discussion there or move it here. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

The article is written as if Marxist theory were correct; no mainstream economic views have been included. (Some mainstream history of econmics views have been included, but that's not the same thing.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope all Wikipedia articles are written as if they are correct. Although most social sciences have their dissidents, lets not allow them to disrupt the rest.

Mainstream economics specifically does not address crisis and in fact denies the possibility of a general crisis. It sees cyclical "boom and bust" behaviour which, according to their spokesman can be avoided. For example:

“by means of appropriate monetary and fiscal policies, (capitalism) can avoid the excesses of boom and bust and can look forward to healthy progressive growth” [Samuelson, ‘Economics’, 11th American Ed. p348]

and;

"...there will never again be a collapse of the banking system [Samuelson ‘Economics’ Aust. 2nd Ed. Hancock Wallace, pg 329]"

It would take some detailed original research to conjure-up some equal crisis theory from within mainstream economists. This is the realm of the so-called radical economists, Austrians, heterodox, or theories of "political economy" and so on.

[[[User:Wilcannia|Wilcannia]] (talk)] —Preceding undated comment added 02:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC).

Old Untitled Thread

What economic, social, and political crises did Europe experience in the early 17th century?

The article is focused on Communist's view of Capitalism and not on modern contemporary economic crisis (i.e. the crisis on Asia or current crisis on the US, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.30.26 (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article, as presented, is highly POV. If it were titled something like "Marxist Theory of Economic Crisis" then it might be OK. Gigs (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

2009-09-08

Overall cleanup and update, reviewing the history I think I'm the single largest contributor to the article. The thread above apparently predates the current titling. Lycurgus (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying that I had no role in the move to the current subject. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Crisis theory

Crisis theory seems to be this article (Crisis (Marxian)), but written from more-or-less a Marxist point of view. I didn't check whether the sources there were all here, but this one is closer to current Wikipedia standards (at least, for sources and references). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it appears that Crisis theory duplicates this subject, but it ought not. 'Crisis theory' should be bigger than a Marxist context and should have points of contact for example with the mathematical topic of Catastrophy theory, i.e. the more general study of system failures. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

But does anyone use the term "Crisis theory" other than Marxians. If not, a hat note for the new article should be there.

Regardless, these two articles should be merged, whether the resulting name should be crisis theory, crisis theory (economics), or crisis theory (Marxian). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the mentioned generalization in mathematics (and others there), and as a trope or whatever in journalism (as in The March of Folly) and as a theme in a wide variety of disciplines and areas of discourse, I don't think there's anything matching "Crisis Theory" as a standalone subject but I don't see any reason a wiki article might not treat of them all. In any case the two actually existing articles are fully redundant subjects as currently composed so some action is called for. Also, I would think the existing target "Crisis (Marxian)" would be the one since 1) it was arrived at by an earlier process (in which I was not involved) and 2) I don't know that there's any "crisis theory" as such with Marxism, although it does constitute a topic or theme addressed by and perhaps even central to it. "Crisis theory (economics)" might be easier to tackle than the general concept and could easily make a large article in it's own own right just referencing mainstream bourgeois economic thought. In that case you might want to merge both of these into that. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In spite of the redundancy, I'm happy to have both articles remain linked by the merge tags. A brief scan of the other article indicates a tone of mainstream bourgeois thought insofar as its view of Marxism is concerned and this one has the opposite perspective (I'm probably the major contributor ATM). These may be irreconcilable and best left as is where the lack of affix to the other is implicit (i.e. Crisis theory = Marxian Crisis (from a Mainstream Economics Perspective). Or maybe just rename the other Marxian Crisis and have "See Crisis (Marxian) for a treatment of this topic from a Marxist perspective" in it and a "See Marxian Crisis for a treatment of this topic from the perspective of capitalist economics" in this one. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Finally, Crisis Theory is prolly best done as a disambig page covering the various applicable topics, not just economics. So actually the other is a misnomer and in fact the best thing would be for it to have the title of this one and this one to become Marxian Crisis. May do do this after this posted for a while for comment and/or prepare a merged draft in my space as for Degenerated workers state and Deformed workers state. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

So, you're suggesting the (content presently at) the two articles remain WP:POVFORKs? This is not good. However, both articles deserve a number of content tags, so it's really difficult to see which material (if any) from either article should be included in an article about the Marxian concept of "Crisis". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Noting I don't have articles in my draft space for either of the Trotskyist concepts above and am unlikely to. Yes I am suggesting that for the time being the status quo remain on this as events and consciousness catch up and the tags and state of affairs fairly exhaustively described above is addressed, which doubtless it eventually will be and sooner rather than later. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

restore lost talk from the merge

May be out of chrono order for that reason. Editor that performed the merge just stranded the talk page of the other article. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 04:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Also this has thrown the history/change log out of whack. I've made substantial contributions to the mainspace text but can't find them in the history so they must predate the merge. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Quote from Capital III

To be clear the text in the marxist.com is correct, it's the reference that is off. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

neutral pov?

The following quote needs to be fixed:

"Marxists, on the other hand, see economic crisis as part of the larger crisis of the social order they wish to supplant"

No, unless we are talking about utopian socialism, I don't see how in Marx's scientific socialist thought, a value is being placed on "supplanting" capitalism, thus implying that human beings are the force behind the demise of capitalist society. Marx simply showed the motion of capitalist development and its tendency to collapse and reform itself. Nowhere does he advocate the overthrowing of capitalism IN HIS ECONOMIC THOUGHT (i.e. all 4 volumes of das kapital). In fact, Marx strove to be very value free in his works. For example, in chapter 10 of capital volume I, he mentions how "force decides between" the "two equal rights" -- the right of capitalists to exploit labour power and the right of workers to preserve their labour power...Now, why would an individual, who belongs to a strain of thought that is commonly seen as advocating the overthrow of the capitalist system, seen here as affirming the "rights of capitalists" to exploit their workers labour power? Marxism is scientific because it does not take into account such value latent concepts and ideas, and instead, shows objectively, how the system is prone to collapse BY AND THROUGH ITSELF without the need of any outside force interfering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.5.140 (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

cf. The Communist Manifesto. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki

Many interwiki point to "economic crisis" which is not the same as "(Marxian) crisis theory". --Alex1011 (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

conjuncture

I can find nothing which uses "conjuncture" in that sense; the definition is a heighted form of coincidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Using Marxian crisis theory to reform capitalism

Here's a topic that's well-worthy of discussion. With Marxian crisis theory getting some respect from certain members of the business establishment, such as George Magnus, I wonder if center-left progressives could co-opt any of the ideas in a program of reforming capitalism to make it work better for the 99 percent?

Of particular interest is the "full employment profit squeeze." If Chairwoman Jan Yellen were to keep monetary policy loose long enough to get a tight labor market and upward wage pressure, that might be a clever tool mainstream progressives could use for redistributing income from capital back toward labor. That might also be the time for a more progressive post-2016 Congress and Presidency to swoop in with some pro-labor legislation to get private-sector union organizing going once again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlbonner1982 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrong take on Keynesianism

This seems wrong: "Keynesian Economics which attempts a "middle way" between laissez-faire, unadulterated capitalism and state guidance and partial control of economic activity, such as in the French dirigisme or the policies of the Golden Age of Capitalism attempts to address such crises with the policy of having the state actively supplying the deficiencies of unaltered markets." I don't think it's right to say that Keynesianism seeks a middle way between free markets and state control of economic activity. The Keynesians are a diverse lot; not all of them (or even most of them) support a lot of direct government control or intervention in markets. The only thing one needs to support in order to qualify as a Keynesian (in normative, not positive economics) is counter-cyclical fiscal policy. Giving tax rebates to everyone when there's a recession and then taxing it back when there's a boom is a counter-cyclical fiscal policy. The point is that Keynesianism isn't really about the level of state intervention in markets (much less state control over markets); rather, it's a position regarding the distribution of government revenue and expenditure across the business cycle. Also, the book that comes up when one follows the link for "middle way" seems to have nothing to do with Keynesianism.2601:47:4200:542:CAF7:33FF:FE77:D800 (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

i have a question. You assert that one can be a Keynesian without supporting government intervention in markets. But your definition of a Keynesian involves 'tax rebates ..when there's a recession' which surely involves large-scale borrowing or printing of money by the government. Is that not government intervention in (capital) markets?

Gravuritas (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)