Michael Dawson wrote:
>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.
>
>
We are great admirers of Sweezy, although we can also see his
limitations. Sweezy did not get EVERYTHING right. The monopoly capital
school took a giant step forward by introducing power into the analysis,
and therefore abandoning value as a yardstick for pecuniary
accumulation. But this approach stopped short of thinking through the
implications of power for the very concept of CAPITAL. If you allow
power, you cannot measure capital in terms of value or utility. And when
you lose your basic "substance" of measurement, the entire notion of
"production" as the quantitative basis for accumulation is gone -- along
with all the historical "tendencies", "laws of motion", "expanded
reproduction", "overaccumulation" etc., etc. Such theoretical collapse
requires a new theory altogether.
Incidentally, where did we argue that nobody foresaw the "new economy"?
>Personally, I also find your presentation of Veblen to be radical
>inadequate.
>
>
I'm not sure what you refer to in this statement. Veblen was the first
one to see power ("sabotage") as a basis for understanding capital. Our
approach continues his work as much as it continues Marx.
>Veblen and Sweezy retain immense explanatory power for the present day. Why
>do you deny this?
>
>
We don't deny that at all. On the contrary. A note: Sweezy adopted
Veblen's insight into power, but missed entirely his suggestion that
capital itself should be thought in terms of power.