The Law of Accumulation and Breakdown of the Capitalist System, Being also a Theory of Crises

by Henryk Grossmann, Jairus Banaji (Translator), Tony Kennedy (Introduction)

'Law of Accumulation, first published in German in 1929 , is one of the seminal works of Marxian political economy, both in its method and in substantive theory. Reissued in the original German in 1970 , Grossmann's work has also appeared in Japanese, but there has never (until now) been an English edition. This is an important volume ... it will be essential reading for anyone with an interest in the development of Marxian economic theory.' Science & Society

Genres: Economics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Politics

240 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1929

About the author

alternative spelling for Henryk Grossman

Reviews

[Sam Whitehill · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the guy who used Otto Bauer’s own model, supposedly proving the equilibrating tendency of capitalism, to show the opposite: capitalism has an in built tendency to breakdown due to a decline in the rate of profit, just as Marx noted. This book is more than that, though, as Grossman spends many more pages discussing countervailing tendencies, answering the question “Why doesn’t capitalism break down sooner?” Crisis theory doesn’t let revolutionaries off the hook, but it does help us understand the morbidity of capitalism.

[Jake · Rating 5 out of 5]

Grossman goes beast mode on the underconsumptionists and neo-harmonists.

[Eve · Rating 4 out of 5]

4-5 stars, but i need to study the book more thoroughly like look up terms citations etc. As for now it's like 4.25

I picked up this book because I told it explained how capitalism leads to fascism, or that fascism is merely capitalism when there's low returns in investment.

Very dense book. Probably a very useful book because it's a work that says we live in a finite planet and captialists want infinite growth.

So basically it's like deconstructing figuring/accounting standards.

My problem is that IDK the people who he's critiquing & so that's a ton of context I'm missing

So I do believe this gives answers that are great but IDK what revisionists were saying etc