Marxist Crisis Theory and the Need to Explain Both Sides of Capitalism's Cyclicity

Marxism's insistence on the inherently contradictory nature of capitalism remains an enduring strength compared with orthodox accounts, which are unable to explain recurrent crises. However, no less inherent to capitalism is the transformation of slumps into booms, and Marx saw crises as momentary and forcible solutions to capitalism's contradictions. Despite this, extensive Marxist controversies have concentrated on how capitalism enters rather than how it recovers from crises. This paper examines prevailing theories in terms of their capacity to explain both sides of capitalism's cyclicity, considering their theoretical consistency and offering some provisional empirical examinations. None of the major existing interpretations appears entirely satisfactory. While the evidence is far from conclusive, this essay tentatively suggests a synthetic interpretation based around disproportionality and changing value compositions of capital.