> For Marx, these crises ultimately culminate in the unavoidable collapse of capitalism.

But I mean that's exactly the whole difference, right? Both Marx and others identified this pattern, Marx believes this ultimately will explode, others don't, so it makes sense that others would want to label it in a way that indicates their view that the pattern is "normal" and sustainable.

I'm not even saying Marx is wrong, but just because Marx thought something about something he noticed doesn't mean he's right. Others that came after him are allowed to come to different conclusions about the things he noticed.

One thing worth remembering, and that even a lot of socialists forget, is that Marx predicted this not out of some deep hate for capitalism.

The first half of the first chapter of the Communist Manifesto is Marx being a total fanboy for capitalism and it's capacity for transforming the world.

Marx predicted that capitalist competition, which he expressed admiration for, would be too successful, and that people would just fail to reign it in and deal with the result.

There's a conceptually very simple fix to the crises Marx predicted if he's otherwise right:

Share more of the value, and spread labour around if automation comes to reduce the need for labour to the extent he predicted, where, to paraphrase, both overproduction and lack of work becomes common.

It doesn't take equality to prevent it, just enough adjustment to smooth out the crises enough to prevent escalation.

Marx took capitalists own predictions about the efficiency of capitalist competition at face value, and simply asked what will happen if capitalism eventually runs out of new markets to expand into (temporarily or permanently) and responds by driving down margins, and his prediction of eventual revolution is predicated on the assumption that society will fail to apply those very simple fixes.

Ironically, then, if capitalism survives, it might be because the competitive pressures are not as strong as Marx believed.

This is where I think people try to pull 'gotchas' on Marx because Capitalism hasn't reached the point of bursting yet. I don't necessarily think he was wrong, nor right. The reality, the persistence of capitalism will happen so long as people/systems are willing to be flexible enough to "resolve the current set of contradictions." Now, those resolution's sometimes don't remain resolved because many of us have the memory of a goldfish when it comes to economics. But as long as people who have the powers to make the calls are willing to bend over backwards enough (even temporarily), capitalism won't cease.

FWIW i first learned of it from a libertarian angle, which equated business cycle with economy wide (mal) investment which was, in practice, usually driven by the fed or some comparable government program. Whether consistent or not it holds at least some truth and was an interesting angle to start learning about economics.

Libertarianism and Austrian economics has a perception of outright rejecting empiricism and other rational thought, so I'd like to add a clarification. Libertarian theory doesn't deny naturally occurring downturns in economies, but that the severity and length of them are lessened without state mismanagement. Potentially, to the point that nation-spanning busts would be a thing of the past.

> But "business cycle" sounds much better, and leaves off all that spooky "systemic problem" stuff.

It all sounds better than his "mass murder/starvation death" systemic problems.