> -----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 1:32 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] New Imperialism or New Capitalism?
>
> I will ask you just one question. You say that capital is "a form of
> counting, but it counts, albeit with serious slippage, real activities".
> Now, in WHAT UNITS does it count them? Don't say money, for it will be a
> circular answer.
>
> Michael Dawson wrote:
>
> >>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.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Sweezy would strongly disagree with you that the division you think is
> there
> >is there. Why can't you talk about capital as BOTH power and value?
> Power
> >maintains a system in which money (an abstract numerical category) is
> >accepted as the measure of value, and accumulated money directs power.
> But
> >having money is not a dream. It's real. And capital represents
> "savings,"
> >meaning that is functions as a way of tying future investment and work to
> >past investment and work. It's a form of counting, but it counts, albeit
> >with serious slippage, real activities.
> >
> >And, if this is true, your whole argument collapses.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Incidentally, where did we argue that nobody foresaw the "new economy"?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >In the first few pages of your paper, you treat the "new economy" as if
> >everybody who looked at it was convinced it was a genuine structural
> change
> >in the system. But Sweezyists certainly did not. Neither did or does
> Doug
> >Henwood. In fact, I doubt any major Marxist observers thought so.
> >
> >Treating all Marxists as "new economy" believers appears to be the basis
> for
> >your whole argument. You say only your new perspective can explain the
> >implosion of the "new economy" and current geopolitical trends. You can
> >only say this by folding Sweezy and others into the school of "new
> economy"
> >dupes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>>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.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Not true! Marx was the first one. And my objection to your treatment of
> >Veblen is that you try to pass him off as somebody who claimed you could
> >only understand the system by means of some ultra-abstract "overall"
> >appreciation of capital. In reality, Veblen viewed the relations of
> >capitalism as but a "covert regime" for applying to age-old means of
> class
> >coercion -- "force and fraud."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>>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.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Well, by zooming past the explanatory power they have, you deny it. And
> you
> >also obscure the fact that you are very, very close to claiming to have
> >invented the idea that capital is power. That idea goes back farther
> than
> >Marx. Adam Smith knew capital is power. He just thought it was mostly
> just
> >power. Marx disagreed.
> >
> >___________________________________
> >http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk