[lbo-talk] New Imperialism or New Capitalism?

[Michael Dawson]

But Sweezy got it _all_ right, if you actually give a full and fair reading
to his perspective.  His theory of capital predicts that the system becomes
increasingly financial, thanks to chronic overaccumulation, which is merely
the numerical/financial expression of social relationships.  Capital is too
successful to permit its own perfect operation.  And this theory also
predicts that the "new economy" you pretend nobody foresaw was a temporary
fix from the start.

Personally, I also find your presentation of Veblen to be radical
inadequate.

Veblen and Sweezy retain immense explanatory power for the present day.  Why
do you deny this?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Jonathan Nitzan
> Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 9:15 AM
> To: LBO
> Subject: [lbo-talk] New Imperialism or New Capitalism?
> 
> "Sweezy identified the problem, but only partly. In our opinion, the
> issue is not to understand the INTERACTION between the "real" and the
> "financial," but to RETHINK these very concepts. That is what we
> attempted to do. "
> 
> If I am understanding this train of thought correctly, It's not just about
> the accumulated capital, goods, financial instruments... stuff. But it's
> also about a culture or society's "interaction" with said "stuff", which
> is in flux and requires "rethinking"??
> 
> ???
> Leigh Meyers
> leigh_m at sbcglobal.net <http://mailman.lbo-
> talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk>
> 
> The way you put it represents the SSA/Regulation approach. This approach
> seeks to augment the "economic" aspects of accumulation (supposedly made
> of machines, goods and financial instruments) with the "social" aspects
> of accumulation (culture, politics, etc.).
> 
> Our claim is radically different.
> 
> We argue against the very notion that capital derives its pecuniary
> quantities from some "substantive" reality based on "stuff" (whether
> measured in utils or abstract labor). As we see it, capital is the
> numerical architecture of capitalism, the basic code of the "capitalist
> nomos". Marx's distinction between "real" and "fictitious" capital
> should be reversed. Finance is the only real form of capital. The
> notions that machines can have a "quantity" is the fiction.
> 
> Finance, or capitalization, represents the present value of expected
> feature earnings. The earnings and their discounting mechanism have
> nothing do with the quantity of any "stuff" such as machines, goods or
> services. Rather, they are the numerical representation of the power of
> exclusion. This power permeates the entire social process, from the
> assembly line, through formal politics, to religion, culture,
> consumption and what not. In that sense, capital represents the
> capitalization of power.
> 
> The argument is articulated in the two papers.
> 
> Jonathan Nitzan
> 
> 
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk