This is an English translation of an interview published in Chinese by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in 2025 in World Socialist Research.
1. Michael Roberts, thank you for your time! Could you briefly tell us when you got to know and accept Marxism and what impact did your previous job in the City of London have?
If you have a Marxist insight into the workings of finance capital, you are much less likely to assume that all will be well with financial investment. One lesson for workers that I learnt and this applies to China too: stay out of financial markets. Even better, workers’ pension funds should not rely on stock market investing as these funds continually lose workers’ contributions by doing so. But it works the other way too. A close understanding of the workings of the financial beast can help us explain better the fragilities and speculations of the system.
2. What do you think is the core idea of Marxism? What’s the relationship between historical materialism and the critique of political economy?
The core ideas of Marxism can be reduced to two key concepts.
First, the history of human organisation since primitive times is the history of class struggle. The materialist conception of history is that change for better or worse is driven by the material interests of classes and, in particular, by the ruling class (feudal lords, capitalist companies) and the working class. While individuals can play key roles at moments in history (decisions and actions by kings or by revolutionary leaders), in the final analysis, change depends on economics and classes. As Marx said: “men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.”
The second core idea is the law of value under capitalism. Capitalism is a system of production for the profit of the owners of the means of production, who exploit those who own nothing but their ability to work for the owners. Labour creates all the things and services that we use and need, but the value of that labour is appropriated by the owners of the means of production as ‘surplus value’ over and above what labour receives for its work. That surplus value is accumulated as capital. Our social needs then depend on the decisions of capitalists on whether it is profitable or not. This explanation of the workings of the modern economy is denied by the apologists for capitalism – but it is compellingly clear.
3. The theory of crisis is an important part of Marx’s critique of political economy. There have been many debates among Marxists on how to understand Marx’s theory of crisis. What do you think of Marx’s theory of crisis, and the relationship between overproduction, underconsumption, and the tendency of the rate of profit to fall?
Yes, a theory of crises under capitalism is very important. The apologists for capitalism deny that there are any endemic crises in capitalist production – ie regular and recurring slumps in production, investment and employment. For them, such crises are either random events, one-offs or the result of bad decisions, speculations or negligence. The apologists deny that crises are inherent in the capitalist system of production for profit. But Marx’s law of value reveals why regular crises are endemic. Capitalist production only takes place if profits are made and Marx shows that a contradiction arises between the drive for more production and profitability of that production (ie profits relative to capital invested). Capitalists compete against each other to gain market share and a bigger cut in the profits appropriated from workers. In order to gain an advantage, they resort to using labour-saving technology to reduce costs and increase the productivity of labour. But Marx argued that profit only comes from labour going to work, so if investment is increasingly in machines etc relative to labour, productivity may rise but at the expense of a tendency for profitability to fall. Eventually, profitability may fall so much that it causes a fall in total profits. Then capitalists stop investing, close down production and lay off workers. Unemployment rises alongside unsold goods and services. This is a slump. It can only be rectified by getting profitability rising again and that requires removing unnecessary workers, weak companies and keeping wages down. Then the whole process can start again. Slumps are a necessary ‘cleansing’ process for capital to recover. Marx outlines his theory of crises most clearly in Capital Volume 3, Chapters 13-15.
However, many Marxists do not accept that the law of tendency of the rate of profit to fall as explained in these chapters is relevant to crises in capitalism. Instead they consider two other main theories. The first is that there is ‘underconsumption’. This is when workers cannot buy back all the goods and services produced by the capitalists because they do not have enough money. Both Marx and Engels disputed this underconsumption theory, pointing out that workers will never have enough money to buy back all the output being sold, precisely because wages do not contain all the value created and realised as the capitalists have appropriated any surplus value (the difference between the value of commodities sold and wages going to the workers; in other words, profits). The point is that capitalists do not need to sell all their commodities to workers; much of sales is to other capitalists (eg steel is sold to auto manufacturers to make cars etc).
The other alternative theory is that of ‘overproduction’. Capitalists just keep producing to accumulate more profits without considering whether they can sell their production on the market. They overproduce relative to demand. The problem with this explanation of crises is that it does not explain when production becomes ‘too much production’. It may never happen, or it could happen at any moment. There is no logic to this theory. Put it this way, if supply is in line with demand, can there still be a crisis of investment and production in capitalism? Marx would say yes, because the profitability of what is being produced is what decides whether capitalists invest or not. Indeed, this is how crises unfold. Profitability falls, then total profits and then capitalists try to sell more to cover falling profits. But that means ‘overproduction’, forcing capitalists to lower prices and/or cut production. Overproduction is the result of the overaccumulation of capital ie falling profitablity of capital invested, not the other way round.
4. In 2020, you published the book Engels 200 – His Contribution to Political Economy, in which you systematically introduced Engels’ research on political economy and his contribution to Marxist political economy. However, there is a view that the crisis caused by the rate of profit to fall is actually Engels’ viewpoint, and he exaggerated or even tampered with Marx’s discussion on the tendency of the rate of profit to fall when editing volume 3 of Capital. What do you think of this viewpoint?This view has been expressed by several Marxists (in particular, the German Marxist scholar, Michael Heinrich) who claim that they have read unpublished papers by Marx that apparently show Engels changing Marx’s words to make the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall appear more important. These Marxists also claim that Marx actually abandoned the law in the 1870s and so it should not be considered relevant to Marxist economics and crisis theory.
But other scholars have shown clearly that Engels did not engage in any significant distortion of Marx’s text as in Chapters 13-15 of Volume 3 where the law of profitability is spelt out. And there is no evidence that Marx dropped the law in the 1870s – on the contrary, he conducts further work on it. For example, in the 1870s, Marx spent considerable time looking at the rate of profit with various mathematical formulas. When Engels came to edit Capital Volume 3, he excluded Marx’s mathematical work on the rate of profit, even though it would have confirmed that Marx still held to his law. All this is explained in my book, Marx 200 and in my book Engels 200, with all the references.
The Marxists who push this have also bent Marx’s law of value into a theory of money ie. value is not created by labour in production, but instead is only realised in selling commodities produced on the market. So no sale, then no value. This was not Marx’s view. Value is the result of the effort of human labour in production; how much of that value is eventually realised depends on sale in the market. But there is no value at all without human labour production. Behind this revised theory is an attempt to replace profitability as the ultimate cause of crises with a theory of monetary or credit instability, similar to the view of mainstream economists like Keynes.
5. From your point of view, what are the main differences between Marxist political economy and other schools of economics (like neoclassical economics, Keynesianism, etc.)? Can we regard the theory of crisis as an important difference or even essential difference between Marxist political economy and mainstream Western economics?
The key difference above all is that other schools of economics, even the most radical ‘heterodox’ schools that do not accept that markets are perfect, do not agree with Marx’s law of value. They do not accept that the key contradiction of capitalist production is production for profit, not social need and that increased production eventually comes into conflct with increased profitability and that is what leads to booms and slumps, ie crises. The mainstream neoclassical school deny crises can happen in properly run markets or in markets that are not interfered with by governments, monopolies or trade unions. Heterodox economists deny the role of profit in crises and look to either a ‘lack of demand’ (Keynes); or financial instability (Minsky) or monopolies (Sweezy, Stiglitz) or bad regulation.
And this is a crucial difference, because all these schools are suggesting that capitalist production can be modified or corrected to make capitalism work better. Keynes said more government spending or monetary injections will do the trick; heterodox Minsky said: regulate the banks and finaancial institutions, then capitalism will be stable. These reformist approaches are theoretally and empirically wrong. Marx’s theory of crisis shows that capitalism cannot be reformed in that way. Crises are endemic to capitalism because ultimately they are caused by falling profitability. The only way to end crises is to replace capitalism with a planned economy under common ownership ie no capitalists.
6. In your research, what impacts does the financialization of capitalism have on the real economy and the working class?
One of the features of the last 50 years in modern economies in the Global North has been the rise of the financial sectors, not just banks but hedge funds, investment funds, insurance funds, private equity, cryptocurrencies etc. Increasingly, capitalists have switched their investment of accrued profits into financial assets and speculation rather than into investment into new technology and productive sectors. This is the phenomenon of ‘financialisation’.
However, some Marxists and others have been so enamoured by this development that they have started to claim that capitalism has changed its spots. It is no longer a system of production for profit through the exploitation of labour in factories, offices etc, but now it is just a financial monetary system where money makes more money. This means that workers have lost their role as producers of value in capitalism. Now capitalists can get value just from monetary tricks. Capitalism has become finance capital, which rules over producer capital.
This is nonsense. Although financial profits in some economies like the US and the UK are large, say up to 25% of total profits, the vast majority of profits are still made by selling goods and services produced by workers. And that is especially the case in the so-called Global South where manufacturing has become predominant, not finance. Globally, the working class has never been larger and still most capitalist accumulation comes from the labour of working people in production. The leopard of capitalism has not changed its spots.
7. What do you think of the current crisis of capitalism in the global economic system, especially the financial crisis in recent years? What insights can Marxist political economy provide for us to understand the crisis of capitalism?
This is a big subject. In the 21st century we have had the two biggest slumps in the history of capitalism, 2008-9 and 2020. There is every reason to expect that another slump will take place before the end of this decade. That may be triggered by a new financial crash as in 2008. This time that crash may not start in the banks as such but be engendered by rising corporate debt and the cost of servicing that debt. Already, there are around 20% of companies in Europe, Japan and the US that are called ‘zombies’ ie they are like the living dead because they do not make enough profits to cover even the cost of servicing their existing debt and so must keep borrowing.These companies are in serious risk of going bust and bringing down even profitable companies in a ricochet effect.
8. You think that since the end of the Great Recession in 2009, the major capitalist economies have been in a Long Depression. Is there any difference between the Long Depression and previous long depressions in the history of capitalism? What strategies should China adopt in response to the global impact of the Long Depression?
I define a depression as opposed to a recession or slump as a period where after a slump, the previous trend of growth in output, investment and above all profitability, is much lower than before the slump. And this lower trend can last for decades. In that sense, the Long Depression of the 2010s onwards that I have identified is similar to the depression of the late 19th century (1873-97) and the Great Depression of 1929-42. As of 2025, the current depression is continuing as the pandemic slump of 2020 did not lead to a significant rise in profitability and so investment growth and real GDP growth remain even weaker than in the 2010s.
China has avoided all these crises in capitalism. That’s because China has an economy dominated by a large state sector and planning by the government, so that any instability in its capitalist sector can be overcome and investment and production can carry on relatively uninterrupted. If the capitalist economies of the West head into another slump, then trade and investment into China will be hit, but China now has a massive domestic base and it has invested heavily into new technologies and continues to direct and plan that investment mainly through the state sector. China needs to expand the state sector and planning to reduce the instability in its capitalist sector, particularly exposed by its plunging real estate sector (mostly capitalist based).
9. Digital currency and blockchain technology have been hot topics in the field of financial technology in recent years, and they have had a profound impact on the global economy and financial system. What is your opinion of these financial innovations and digital finance？Will they lead to a more serious global economic crisis？
Cryptocurrencies, as they are called, like bitcoin, are just another form of speculative financial asset like gold or paintings. They are not alternative forms of money that could replace state issued currencies (fiat money) like the dollar or yuan. Digital currencies in general already exist in one form ie you pay your bills by card, phone or bank transfer without any paper money involved. The possible new development would be a central bank digital currency that bypasses commercial banks. So far, that development has made limited progress. In the meantime, cryptocurrencies are yet another form of what Marx called ‘fictitious capital’ that adds yet more risk of a financial crash down the road.
10. Given the increasing popularity of artificial intelligence and automation, how to apply Marxism to analyze the impact of technological progress on production modes and social relations?In your research, what is the correlation between technological progress and economic growth?
This is complicated. Artificial intelligence (AI) is just a new form of technology aimed at replacing human labour and increasing the productivity of labour and so raising the rate of exploitation on labour by capital. New technology can lead to huge job losses, especially for those in industries and occupations it replaces, but it can also, over time, create new industries and employment. Consider the industrial revolution, the electricity revolution, the auto industry, computer revolution. Technology has always been key to economic growth by raising the productivity of labour, especially when the size of the labour force stops rising – as in China today.
It is argued that AI is a completely new development that will replace human labour altogether because it can supersede human intelligence. The evidence for this is doubtful. Much of AI is just a fast processing of existing human knowledge and cannot replace the imaginative nature of human intelligence. Also, AI will take some time, even decades, to diffuse its productivity-enhancing effects through economies. In my view, it is not a ‘game changer’ that can save capitalism.
11. Technofeudalism is a view that has emerged in recent years to describe the changes of society caused by cloud technology, that is, tech giants and large platform enterprises possess the data and power like feudal lords, while ordinary users serve these digital overlords as unpaid data producers like serfs, and the new form of rent replaces profit as the main form of accumulation. Do you agree with using technofeudalism to define the current stage of western society?
Technofeudalism as a concept suggests that capitalist production, ie production for a profit through the exploitation of labour, has been replaced by a feudalism where digital monopolies just extract rents. But where do these rents come from? Marx pointed out that rent, interest and profits all come from the same source: the surplus value appropriated from the value created by human labour power. It is just wrong to argue that companies selling cloud technology are not producing commodities for sale and profit just like any capitalist process. The bulk of Amazon’s profits come from distribution and transport of things; the bulk of Facebook’s profits come from advertising; the bulk of Google’s too. The bulk of Microsoft and Apple profits are from selling computer hardware and software. This is not feudalism but straightforward capitalism. Capitalism is not dead and to suggest that it is a dangerous idea for workers because it means labour may not see its enemy as capital as a whole, but just a small part of capital, so that there is no need to replace capitalism but just ‘feudal monopoly’ capitalism.
12. The labor theory of value is the core idea of Marxist economics. In time of automation and the digital economy, how to apply the labor theory of value to analyze modern economy? What do you think of data as a new factor of production?
Data or knowledge comes from human activity. So knowledge has value in the same way that physical things have value for society and for capital. Knowledge is material: it requires the energy of human labour; ie. mental labour, in the same way as physical labour. Both are material and create value. So capital can appropriate surplus value from knowledge workers that it employs and does so increasingly across industries and the world. Such surplus value is embodied in patents, intellectual property rights etc. Knowledge or mental labour is just as ‘material’ as physical labour. Mental activity takes place in the synapses of the human brain and is combined with physical labour using a computer etc. So mental labour creates value just as much as physical labour. And knowledge workers are just as much part of the proletariat as manual workers doing physical tasks.
Indeed, mental labourers are being exploited increasingly by capital to appropriate surplus value (profit) .So there is no need to invent a new term for the working class such as a ‘multitude’. This implies that the working class, those who only make a living by selling their labour power and own no means of production, no longer exist. This term hides the class struggle between labour and capital, thus confusing the need to replace capitalism.
13. Has the development of the digital capitalism widened the North-South divide?
Yes, it is widening that divide. But that divide is widening anyway. The Global South (with the exception of China) is not catching up with the Global North however you measure it: by GDP per person; by productivity per worker; by income per person; by reducing inequality. The North-South divide is expressed in the control of an imperialist bloc of economies with relatively low population dominating the rest of the world which has the bulk of humanity.
14. What economic policies do you think president Donald Trump will adopt, and what impacts will these policies have on the global economy?
We cannot be sure what Trump will do. But he says he is going to apply huge tariffs on US imports, particularly those coming from China. He claims his aim is to get US industry back to where it was at the expense of the rest of the world. Above all, he wants to continue the policy of previous US administrations to strangle, choke and reverse the economic progress of China, which is seen as the main threat to US hegemony. Indeed, Trump will also back further military provocations to restrict China. Domestically, he aims to cut corporate taxation so the rich and big business pay even less than now and do away with regulations on industry and global warming abatement. His Cabinet is composed completely of billionaire hedge fund and private equity managers who will seek to benefit the rich at the expense of most Americans.
Worldwide, if Trump does follow through with these policies, then world trade will fall back and tensions between the US-led Western alliance and China will rise dangerously. Inequality of wealth and income between countries and within countries will increase and the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East will continue, with the risk of war in Asia too.
15. Will Trump’s promised economic policies, such as massive tax cuts and increased military spending, pose a threat to global economic stability by leading to higher global debt levels?
Yes, global debt is already at record highs and relative to global output. In particular, the US government is running sizeable budget deficits in order to finance the war in Ukraine and for Israel and it plans massive increases in military spending to fund further action globally. Trump wants Europe to pay more for this, but in the meantime, US public debt is hitting all-time highs and the cost of servicing that debt in interest is now surpassing government spending on education and health and other public services.
16. Will Trump’s economic policies worsen the contradictions of the global capitalist system, leading to overproduction and the tendency of crisis?
All this is against a global background of low growth and trade, poor investment and productivity growth. The major capitalist economies, with the possible exception of the US, are stagnating or even in outright recession, especially in Europe. There is every possibility that these economies will face a serious slump by the end of this decade, which will spill over to the rest of the world, as happened in 2008 and 2020. Only China can hope to ride through that.
17. Do Trump’s economic policies reflect the rise of economic nationalism and protectionism in the context of globalization? Will these policies worsen global economic inequality? How can developing countries respond to the inequality in the global economic system?
Protectionism and nationalism by others is no alternative solution to Trump. Developing countries need to come together to cooperate on trade, investment and reducing inequality. But to do that, the people in these countries must get governments that stand for labour and for common ownership of resources and assets to plan each economy and in cooperation globally. Unfortunately, nearly all Global South governments do not stand for these policies. They are either controlled by despots or support big business at home and US imperialism abroad. Until these governments are changed, I do not expect much progress in higher growth, reduced inequalities, full employment and better public services.
18. You persist in writing blogs for a long time. What influence has this style of writing made on your thinking and exchange of ideas? Could you share your recent research or research plan in the future？
The aim of the blog and my books is to increase our understanding of how capitalism works, its contradictions and faultlines, with a view to replace it. I consider that Marx’s analysis of capitalism is the most compelling and so I seek to defend Marx’s views, as I see them, against alternatives, all of which come down to trying to make capitalism work (better). I aim my blog not at academics but at activists seeking to change the world for the better. That does not mean I ignore difficult or complex issues of theory or statistical evidence. On the contrary, I try to explain them more clearly. Currently, I am preparing a new book on what is happening in capitalism and in the world economy in the 2020s. It is really a follow up to my Long Depression book published in 2016. Many things have happened since and there is more to come in this decade.
