Crisis of Capitalism, Crisis of Theory: Dominant Capital and Differential Accumulation in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The unfolding global political-economic crisis has brought both orthodox and heterodox theories of political economy into question. The dominant mainstream framework, neoclassical economics, blames the crisis largely on speculative excesses in the financial system while Marxist accounts of the crisis attribute it to the stagnation tendencies within the ‘real’ economy. Despite the manifold theoretical differences, both frameworks agree on this: there is indeed a crisis, and if we dig deep enough, at the root of it we will find some imbalance between the ‘real’ economy and nominal finance. This paper will suggest that both mainstream and Marxist explanations of the current crisis are off the mark because they ask the wrong questions. Instead of looking at absolute outcomes in the accumulation process—based on either utility (neoclassical economics) or abstract labour (Marxism)—this paper will employ the capital as power framework (see Nitzan and Bichler, 2009) to query distributional outcomes. The paper will begin with a brief review of the mainstream and Marxist accounts of the crisis and from there will examine the crisis in Canada on three levels: first, the redistributional character of crises; second, the performance of dominant capital relative to the corporate universe; and third, the distributional winners within dominant capital itself. Using disaggregate measures and with a view to differential and distributional outcomes, we will be in a better position to determine whom this has actually been a crisis for.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".