Jerry: This is a question that I am not prepared to debate with you in detail. In my interpretation of the Sweezy/Baran/Foster view, Marx's value approach is an essential part of the investigative method by which they arrived at their results, and is also essential to the way they treat the financial sector as an absorver but not producer of surplus value. This is not to say that the integrative questions you raise are not important. I think they have more to do with the method of presenation than the method of analysis itself. But there is also the question of the consistency of their appropriation of basically standard neoclassical analysis of monopolistic market structures and Marx's more value-formed conception of prices of production and market values. I realize this is not a very pleasing response to you, of course. In the case of Foster's book, MARX'S ECOLOGY, the value issues are integrated into his discussion and in his preface Foster he clearly sets out the connection between my more value-theoretic discussion and his historical-intellectual narrative. There is no sense in which Foster's book has any tension with value analysis. Cheers, Paul B. Jerry says: > 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