A Critique of the Monthly Review School....

[RadioRaheem84]

By Monthly Review School, I mean the theory of Monopoly Capital by Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy and carried forward by John Bellamy Foster and Fred Hagdoff in their theory of Monopoly Finance Capital.

Apparently this author believes that Sweezy used marginal utility theory to explain the rising surplus of monopoly capital controlling prices and using military Keynesianism/ imperialism to sustain itself from falling into stagflation. While he said he used Marx's Capital as a foundation, the author claims Sweezy reverted back to his marginal roots.

http://critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/the-monthly-review-school/

It's really long but it's rather eye opening.

[RadioRaheem84]

Bailey? Anyone?

[flobdob]

Definately an interesting read. There are however some problematic claims made; firstly, the claim made about Baran and Sweezy's theory of the economic surplus seems pedantic, and ignores a more fundamental critique of the theory - that they adopt physicalist terms. Likewise, the claim that they never put much on Crisis theory is of course absurd, and a cursory look at the Theory of Capitalist Development - or even a recent issue of Monthly Review - would refute that. There are also a handful of dodgy statements made about revolutionary theory, but these can be excused as generally being a bit divorced from the rest of the article.

My biggest problem is the way that halfway or so down the assertion is made that the insights of neoclassical and Keynesian economics are incompatible with Marxian economics. The former I agree with; the latter I do not. There is a lot of insights that can be gained from a critical reading of Keynes (so too with Minsky, arguably in ways moreso) from a Marxian perspective, and the author of the article seems to disagree.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think the Monthly Review Schools crisis theory is whack. For a start of a critique check out the video I posted of David Calnitsky at the Rethinking Marxism Conference this past November. For a better direction in crisis theory try browsing through the website "radical perspectives on the crisis" linked on my wordpress blog.
Goodness, even Brendan M Cooney from Kapitalism 101 doesn't think too highly of MR.

They must not be popular among a lot of Marxists. The site he offered is really good though.

[flobdob]

I know Brendan really asserts himself with Kliman et al, in stressing the falling rate of profit theory. He's written some stuff very critical of underconsumption theory, so his critique of the MR school is understandable. Nevertheless the MR school does make some valid points, but I imagine Brendan would agree that they are relatively superficial in certain instances.

[vyborg]

Definately an interesting read. There are however some problematic claims made; firstly, the claim made about Baran and Sweezy's theory of the economic surplus seems pedantic, and ignores a more fundamental critique of the theory - that they adopt physicalist terms. Likewise, the claim that they never put much on Crisis theory is of course absurd, and a cursory look at the Theory of Capitalist Development - or even a recent issue of Monthly Review - would refute that. There are also a handful of dodgy statements made about revolutionary theory, but these can be excused as generally being a bit divorced from the rest of the article.

My biggest problem is the way that halfway or so down the assertion is made that the insights of neoclassical and Keynesian economics are incompatible with Marxian economics. The former I agree with; the latter I do not. There is a lot of insights that can be gained from a critical reading of Keynes (so too with Minsky, arguably in ways moreso) from a Marxian perspective, and the author of the article seems to disagree.

I agree. MR and the books of Baran and Sweezy gave a lot of very good analysis even if they were too much influenced by left keynesians (Kalecki, Steindl etc).

We must also aknowledge that Sweezy never gave up. He was a socialist until the end. He was a brilliant economist and could have easily won a Nobel prize. Instead he preferred to stick to socialism and even went to prison for it.

So...we must use a sense of proportion with these intellectuals.

[RadioRaheem84]

Sweezy is a leftist hero that is for sure. Joined the Popular Front in the 40s to fight Fascism. Was hounded by Harvard and Stanford for his Marxist views yet kicked their butts every time he opened his mouth. I mean this goes to show that you can be a brilliant Marxist economist that rips through capitalist arguments and be at the most "prestigious" of schools, yet the system will not acknowledge you and will keep you down.

[vyborg]

I would also add the following: yes the version of marxism given by Sweezy is a bit keynesian, a bit mechanical. But he helped thousand and thousand of students to find Marx. This is far more important than this or that misinterpretation of "The Capital".

[RadioRaheem84]

Monthly Review attracted me because I think that it bridged the gap between what I was reading in the mainstream and what I was reading with the most obscure of Marxist sources. It went beyond theory and took a look at contemporary (not theoretical) bourgeoisie society from a leftist view.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Monthly Review also sympathizes with the Three Worlds Theory by being somewhat dismissive of First World struggles.

[ZeroNowhere]

I would also add the following: yes the version of marxism given by Sweezy is a bit keynesian, a bit mechanical. But he helped thousand and thousand of students to find Marx. This is far more important than this or that misinterpretation of "The Capital".
Not necessarily, considering that Marxist economists have generally been the most determined at dismissing Marx.

[flobdob]

Monthly Review also sympathizes with the Three Worlds Theory by being somewhat dismissive of First World struggles.

Not sure how you can come to this conclusion; firstly you seem to be confusing the "Three Worlds Theory" with "Third-Worldism", and not only this it's pretty wierd. A lot of the emphasis in Monthly Review all over the years (if you've got archive access to their site, you'll see what I mean) has been on building a credible "left" in the USA. Certainly they cover a lot of stuff like struggles in the third world, but this is really to be expected of a credible Marxist journal; that this doesn't happen more often is more indicative of the failings of other Marxist journals, not an anomaly of Monthly Review.

I don't see a problem with being influenced by left keynesians, they have a lot to contribute. They often tend to come to the wrong conclusions, but certainly the contributions of Minsky, Kalecki, Kaldor, Steindl and Robinson have been pretty useful and definately worthwhile studying for all Marxists; so long as you recognise that they have limitations.

[vyborg]

Not necessarily, considering that Marxist economists have generally been the most determined at dismissing Marx.

Most of them yes, not Sweezy anyway

[RadioRaheem84]

The latest issue of MR has a brilliant debate between structural Keynesians and the MR school. Bellamy Foster and McChesney destroy keynesians.

[flobdob]

How is the essay on Minsky? I've not got a copy yet but this issue looks right up my street.

[RadioRaheem84]

It's written by a guest writer who is a structural Keynesian and he is giving a critique of Minsky and the MR school. Bellamy Foster and McChesney respond to him with a hell of a punch, which is also directed at all Keynesians.

Also, Richard Levins has a really, really good analysis on the pros and cons of the Cuban revolution and understanding socialism in general. In it he tries to tell us that most of our expectations and criticisms come from a bourgeoisie perspective and others from a principled socialist one. We just have to examine the things before we criticize Cuba.

Probably the best issue yet

[vyborg]

Do you have this articles free? they seem very interesting

[RadioRaheem84]

Do you have this articles free? they seem very interesting

They aren't free? Hmm maybe I can cut and paste since I have a subscription.

[bailey_187]

A lot of these criticisms IIRC are answered to in John Bellamy Foster's book "The Theory of Monopoly Capitalism: An elaberation of Marxian Political Economy"

[GPDP]

Do you have this articles free? they seem very interesting


They aren't free? Hmm maybe I can cut and paste since I have a subscription.

http://www.monthlyreview.org/

They're all free for viewing at their website, even without a subscription.

[MilitantWorker]

I can get in touch with John Bellamy Foster if any of you guys come up with some serious, professional and academic questions you might like to pose to him

[flobdob]

Thanks for the links to the essays, I'll check them out tonight. As for Bailey, what sorta stuff is in that Monopoly Capitalism book? I've seen it mentioned a few times but never been sure if it's an extension of what the MR school wrote, or just a popularisation like how Sweezy meant the theory of capitalist development was to be of Marx?

[bailey_187]

Thanks for the links to the essays, I'll check them out tonight. As for Bailey, what sorta stuff is in that Monopoly Capitalism book? I've seen it mentioned a few times but never been sure if it's an extension of what the MR school wrote, or just a popularisation like how Sweezy meant the theory of capitalist development was to be of Marx?

Its mostly a rebuttle of critcisms of the Monopoly school. Its not a popularisation, its harder to read than most of the other writings

[RadioRaheem84]

I can get in touch with John Bellamy Foster if any of you guys come up with some serious, professional and academic questions you might like to pose to him

Really? Sweet!

[vyborg]

I quote this passage that is particularly important: "Our own perspective is different. The root problem, as we see it, is not neoliberalism but capitalism itself. Neoliberalism (the economics of Hayek, Friedman, etc.) did not emerge as a dark conspiracy to drag capitalism from high growth rates and vibrancy; it became the orthodoxy when the system was in tatters in the 1970s, and when (bastard) Keynesianism was the establishment doctrine in disrepute. The choice before nations in that decade of crisis was to turn sharply to the left and go beyond existing monopoly capitalism to some variant of socialism, or turn hard right."