Re Paul B's [7329]: > On value analysis, neither Foster nor Sweezy views value theory as > redundant in the sense of Steedman. (See, for example, Sweezy's > essay in THE VALUE CONTROVERSY (1981).) Well, is value theory an essential part of the Baran-Sweezy understanding of the economic surplus and monopoly capitalism? If that perspective can be presented by its proponents sans value theory then I think a redundancy claim could be asserted. The same question could then be extended to Harry Magdoff, J.B. Foster and other writers following in the tradition associated with _Monthly Review_ who assert the importance of historical materialism yet don't integrate value theory into their analysis of capitalism, especially contemporary capitalism. Thus, after the transition from "free competition" to a period of "monopoly capitalism", is value theory required to explain contemporary developments from a Baran-Sweezy erspective? Even though -- as you recognize -- Sweezy believed that value theory was essential for Marx's analysis of capitalism and critique of political economy what we have to do here is separate out Sweezy's hermeneutic claims about Marx's theory from Sweezy's own understanding of capitalism. Sweezy was later to write that Baran and his "procedure" in _Monopoly Capital_ was to "take the labor theory of value for granted and go from there" and he recognized that "this was an error". He also claimed that "at no time did Baran and I explicitly or implicitly reject the theories of value and surplus value but sought only to analyze the modifications that became necessary as the result of the concentration and centralization of capital" (from the preface to the 2nd printing of the Greek translation of _Monopoly Capital_ which first appeared in the January l974 issue of _Monthly Review_, quoted from "Monopoly Capital and the Theory of Value" in John Bellamy Foster ed. and Henryk Szlajfer ed. _The Faltering Economy: the Problem of Accumulation Under Monopoly Capitalism_, NY, Monthly Review Press, l984, pp. 25-26). Apologies notwithstanding, Baran-Sweezy -- as in Steedman and surplus approach theory -- put forward the concept of surplus as an alternative to the concept of surplus value (see note on page l0 of _Monopoly Capital_: "we prefer the concept 'surplus' to the traditional Marxian 'surplus value' ...."). So, I think that indeed a redundancy question should be raised re Baran-Sweezy and MR theories. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 00:00:04 EDT