In my previous post, John Milios’s strange explanation of capitalist crises, I noted Marx did not have a theory of crisis. Mind you, everybody who has ever studied Marx’s theory knows this is true and there is not the slightest hint of disagreement about this. Since the lack of theory of crisis is alleged to have such far-reaching theoretical implications, you would think scholars of labor theory would devote at least a paragraph or two to speculating why Marx himself did not feel the need to develop a theory of crisis.
Instead, folks like the German theorist, Michael Heinrich, suggest Marx was so overwhelmed by his subject that he was unable to complete it. Heinrich argues capitalism was rewriting its own code faster than Marx could transcribe it into a finished work. This argument, although having a hint of credibility, is actually self-serving hogwash on the part of Heinrich. For Heinrich’s version of history to be correct, capitalism has to be fundamentally different than what Marx describes in Capital. How different? In the Grundrisse, Marx predicts a specific historical event he believed was inevitable: the complete collapse of commodity production, but Heinrich argues collapse was never inevitable: