Thomas Piketty’s book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, provides a monumental database for the history of capitalism. But the author’s interpretation of these data is based on an inconsistent theoretical framework that constantly oscillates between two definitions of capital: either capital as accumulated drawing rights on the value created; or capital as a factor of production in the neoclassical tradition. Capital as a social relation is forgotten and the history of capitalism appears as an accounting mechanism.

The deepening of the crisis is obvious. This article demonstrates the systemic nature of the crisis, using a long-term perspective. The substitution of neoliberal capitalism for “Fordist” capitalism can be seen as a reaction to the previous crisis which crystallised in the mid-1970s. With each of these periods can be associate specific modes of functioning, based on relatively coherent configurations. But neither one was really “sustainable”. The fall of the profit rate blew the earlier configuration to smithereens. The second configuration (...) required the continuation of tendencies that eventually met their limits. The article describes these two configurations by way of a “synthetic indicator” of the main variables accounting for the basic parameters of capitalist dynamics. The main conclusion is that the potential inherent in these dynamics has now been exhausted, at least within the “old” capitalist countries. The article raises the issue of a potential continuation of such dynamics within “emerging” countries. (shrink)

Econometrics : Ideology in Equations ? Within the terms of the dominant theory, unemployment can only be the consequence of excessive wage-levels. The procedures resorted to in support of such a hypothesis do however tend to violate a reality which remains stubbornly recalcitrant, even when the most sophisticated devices of formalisation are adopted. Since the domination exercised by the dominant economic model is not a function of its actual epistemological productiveness, it is worthwhile to reflect on the operational conditions governing (...) a field that is polarised between theory and ideology. (shrink)

Robert Brenner's contribution to the history of post-war capitalism provides a stimulating basis for the opening of a debate on this subject. I will begin with some critical remarks before putting forward a number of alternative propositions on the functioning of contemporary capitalism.