The ‘Implications’ of Paul Baran

In its July-August 2012 issue, Monthly Review has published a new document entitled “Some Theoretical  Implications,” written by Paul Baran, which was originally intended to be a chapter of “Monopoly Capital.”  The summer issue also includes the correspondence between Paul Sweezy and Baran during what turned out to be the final weeks of Baran’s life. Written between February and March 1964, we see two of the greatest economists of the 20th century discuss among themselves the “Implications.”

Monthly Review editor John Bellamy Foster put together the “Implications” piece as it appears in the summer 2012 issue from two texts by Baran that were recently found in Sweezy’s papers. These documents were long believed to have been lost, so their discovery and publication is an event of the highest significance for the history of 20th-century economic thought.

Monthly Review plans to publish next year an additional document by Baran that was to be a second chapter on the quality of life under U.S. monopoly capitalism. As it was published in 1966, “Monopoly Capital” has only one such chapter.

While all indications are that Foster has done an extraordinary job editing the Baran documents, they are so important for the history of economic thought it might be a good idea to scan the original texts and make them available online so that future economists and historians can examine them just as Baran and Sweezy left them.

Though all the materials in this fascinating issue of Monthly Review will be posted online before the end of August, I would urge my readers if they possibly can to purchase the issue in hard copy. It is well worth the 12 U.S. and Canadian dollars, 9 euros or 8 British pounds, unless you are really broke.

The importance of the “Implications” document is that it is here that Baran explores the relationship between “the surplus” and Marx’s surplus value. What Marx called surplus value is the most important category of all economics. Ever since “Monopoly Capital” was published in 1966, the question has been asked: Is “the surplus” simply another name for Marx’s surplus value? Or is it something else?

Now a half a century after “Monopoly Capital” was published, we have material that for the first time allows us to answer this question.

Read more …

Reply to Comments by Andrew Kliman and Doug Henwood

Andrew’s comments to my extended review of the “The Failure of Capitalist Production” has clarified both the points of agreement and the differences that exist between us in the field of Marxist economics.

First, the agreements. We both agree that the Keynesian-Marxism of the Monthly Review school as it stands is inadequate both as an analysis of monopoly capitalism and as a response to the current historic crisis of the capitalist system that began with the onset of the “Great Recession” in 2007.

We also agree as against Sweezy and Monthly Review that Marx’s law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is necessary both to understand the laws of motion of the capitalist system and the problem of capitalist crisis. We agree that Marx and not Keynes provides the answers.

We also agree that the “neo-Ricardian” claim that there are basic inconsistencies in Marx’s theory is value is incorrect. We both uphold Marx’s law of labor value.

We have important differences, however, on our interpretation of Marx’s law of value. I believe that Marx’s law of labor value requires the existence of commodity money, notwithstanding the end of the gold standard at the end of the 1960s and early 1970s. Andrew disagrees. This difference of opinion affects both our interpretation of capitalist crises and our approach to the transformation problem.

In addition, I think there are some misunderstandings on Andrew’s part on what defines a capitalist that should be clarified. In addition, I need to say a little more on the evolution of the rate of surplus value since the end of the post-World II prosperity 40 years ago.

Despite my differences with Andrew, I want to stress what I said at the beginning of this extended review. I liked “The Failure of Capitalist Production” and recommend it to all serious students of the Marxist critique of political economy and students of the present extended economic crisis of capitalism, which is increasingly becoming a grave political crisis—as the recent elections in France and especially Greece reveal.

I also found Doug Henwood’s remarks to be useful as well, since it sheds light on my critique of the attempts to mix Marx and Keynes.

I must stress that the aim of this blog is not to destroy or crush other Marxists with whom I disagree on one and other point, but to advance Marxist economic science in order to get nearer to the truth.

Read more…

‘The Failure of Capitalist Production’ by Andrew Kliman — Part 2

Measuring the mass and rate of profit

As Andrew Kliman correctly emphasizes, the rate of profit is the most important economic variable under the capitalist mode of production. Capitalist production is production for profit and only for profit.

But exactly how do we define profit, and in what medium is profit measured? As we will see, there is no general agreement among present-day Marxists on exactly what profit is and how it should be measured. And if we lack a precise definition of profit, we will obviously have difficulties in understanding the significance of the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and the role that this historical tendency plays in real-world capitalist economic crises.

Should we use historical or current prices in calculating the rate and mass of profit?

Kliman strongly supports the use of historical prices rather than current prices to measure the rate of profit. But other Marxists believe that profits are more meaningfully measured in terms of current prices, or what comes to the same thing, replacement costs.

Suppose after an industrial capitalist has purchased the means of production that are necessary for him to carry out the production of his commodity, a sharp fall in prices of the means of production occurs. If we measure profits in terms of historical prices, we may find that our industrial capitalist has not made a profit at all but rather a loss.

However, since the purchasing power of money has risen relative to the means of production used by our capitalist, he will be able to purchase a greater quantity of the means of production than before. Therefore, in real terms he will be able to carry out production on an expanded scale. In that case, hasn’t our capitalist made a profit after all?

Suppose the fall in the level of prices reflects a fall in labor values of the commodities that make up the means of production. In terms of value—abstract human labor embodied in commodities measured in terms of time—he will be in possession of less value than when he started. In value terms, he will have made a loss, but in terms of material use values he will have made a profit.

As we know, capitalists are forced under the pressure of competition among themselves to maximize their accumulation of capital and not means of personal consumption, nor in terms of means of production used to produce means of personal consumption. Instead, each individual capitalist, according to Marx, is forced to maximize the accumulation of capital in terms of value.

Therefore, if an industrial capitalist is losing wealth as measured in value terms, won’t he be losing capital, not accumulating it? And if this continues, won’t he lose all his capital? That is, at a certain point won’t he cease to be a capitalist? Kliman, if I understand him correctly, would strongly agree with this argument.

However, not all economists would agree. For example, the “neo-Ricardians”—or “physicalists” as Kliman likes to call them—claim that labor values have no relationship to prices. The physicalist economists therefore deny that labor value has any importance at all to the capitalist economy. According to these economists, the accumulation of capital cannot therefore be measured in terms of labor values; it must be measured in terms of the accumulation of material use values.

Our physicalists would argue—and the physicalists here include not only “neo-Ricardians” but economists of the neo-classical and Austrian persuasions—that once the effects of deflation—falling prices—have been taken into account, our industrial capitalist has indeed made a profit.

Read more …

‘The Failure of Capitalist Production’ by Andrew Kliman — Part 1

First, I must say I liked this book. I think it is a major contribution to the debate about the nature not only of the latest crisis but of cyclical capitalist crises in general.

This book is a continuation of Kliman’s earlier book “Reclaiming Marx’s Capital” (Lexington Books, 2006), which deals with the so-called “neo-Ricardian” critique of Marx. But “The Failure of Capitalist Production” (Pluto Press, 2012) is more than that. In this book, Kliman deals with crisis theory, the main subject of this blog. He therefore casts a far wider net than he did in the earlier work.

Though Kliman builds on his earlier book, the main target of his critique shifts from “neo-Ricardians” to the “underconsumptionist” school of crisis theory and its main contemporary representative, the Monthly Review school.

Two main schools of crisis theory

I have explained that there are two main theories of the origins of capitalist crises vying with one another among present-day Marxists, both in print and online. One is the theory of underconsumption. The underconsumptionists see the cause of the periodic economic crises under capitalism as lying in the “excessive” exploitation of the workers. In Marxist terms, underconsumptionism attributes crises and capitalist stagnation to a rate of surplus value that is too high.

That is, too high not only from the viewpoint of the workers but even from the standpoint of the interests of the capitalists themselves. According to the underconsumptionists, the capitalists are appropriating plenty of surplus value, but they cannot find enough buyers for the vast quantity of commodities they are capable of producing with the workers they are “excessively” exploiting.

The result is either acute economic crises at periodic intervals or long-term economic stagnation with many workers and machines lying idle, or some combination of both. The giant of underconsumption theory in the last century was the celebrated American Marxist economist Paul Sweezy. Sweezy founded and edited the socialist magazine Monthly Review, from which the Monthly Review school takes its name.

The underconsumptionist school’s main rival attributes periodic crises to Marx’s law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. This school sees the cause of crises as being the exact opposite of what the Monthly Review school and other underconsumptionists claim it is. The falling rate of profit school holds that it is an insufficient rate of surplus value that leads to acute capitalist economic crises and longer-term stagnation. Too little surplus value is produced, not too little from the viewpoint of the workers, of course, but too little relative to the needs of the capitalist system.

The best-known inspirer of the present-day “too little surplus value” school is the Marxist economist Henryk Grossman (1881-1950), who can be seen as the “anti-Sweezy.” The two men were opponents during their lifetimes, and they remain so after their deaths. Kliman does not mention Grossman in this book. However Kliman definitely belongs to the not-enough-surplus-value school of crisis theory.

As I have explained, these two schools of crisis theory are completely opposed to one another. That is, as stated they both can’t be true. I believe that Kliman very much shares this assessment.

Read more …

Empire, Revolution and Counterrevolution

Reader Terry Coggan commenting on my reply on the European crisis wrote: “Thank you for your series of posts over the last several years—I have found them extremely useful. You wisely avoid overt political comment. Where you do depart from your own guideline, as in note 8 to this post where you label the rebellions in the Arab world as ‘counter-revolutionary’—an opinion that can at best be described as controversial—I feel you risk compromising the value of your blog.”

Politics and economics

I have and will continue to keep this blog focused on basic economic theory, especially crisis theory. But as Marxists, we cannot really separate economics from politics. It is a basic tenant of historical materialism that changes in the economic situation will lead sooner or later to important political developments, including both revolutions and counterrevolutions.

Over the last several years, we have seen increasingly radical shifts in the politics of many quite different countries. For example, we have seen waves of demonstrations and strikes in Greece, Spain, Ireland, France, Ireland and Britain. In the United States, we saw after decades of retreat by the trade unions the struggle of the Wisconsin public workers against the attempt to deny them the basic labor rights of collective bargaining and union representation. Just months later we saw the rise of the Occupy movement, beginning in the United States and then spreading around the world. The Occupy movement itself was inspired by the Egyptian revolution that overthrew the hated long-time Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak last February.

In analyzing the revolutions of 1848, Marx explained that the outbreak of the European revolutions of that year, which stretched from France in the west to Hungary in the east, was triggered by the worldwide crisis of overproduction that came to a head in London in October 1847.

The ebbing of that revolutionary wave, according to Marx, was largely determined by the onset of a historic wave of economic prosperity caused by the discovery of gold in far-off California in 1848 and Australia in 1851. He considered this development to have had even greater importance than the revolutions of 1848.

It is pretty clear that the current upheavals—of which the revolutions in the Arab world are the most important component, so far at least—are rooted in the worldwide crisis of overproduction that came to a head in New York in September 2008 with the collapse of the Lehman Brother’s bank. Although the future evolution of the economic situation is as always uncertain, it seems extremely unlikely that the world political situation will be stabilized by new gold discoveries comparable to the discoveries of 1848 and 1851.

In my footnote to which Terry Coggan refers, I most certainly did not say that “the rebellions in the Arab world” were “counterrevolutionary.” We have seen “rebellions” in Morocco, Jordan, Yemen and Bahrain, and even demonstrations in Saudi Arabia, as well as the overthrow of the governments of Egypt and Tunisia. In addition, we saw a movement that succeeded in overthrowing the Muammar Qaddafi government in Libya but only with the help of direct U.S. and NATO military intervention.

There is also a movement in Syria trying to bring down the government of Bashar Assad. Unlike the movement in Yemen against the long-time dictatorial President Abdullah Saleh, or movements against the absolute monarchies in the Arab world, the movement against Assad and his Baath Party enjoys the support of the governments of the U.S., Britain and the European Union.

U.S. President Obama has demanded that President Assad leave office, just like he previously demanded that Qaddafi surrender power in Libya—though Qaddafi held no formal posts in Libya. Such a demand goes counter to the basic principle of bourgeois democracy that the question of who leads the government of a given country is the business of the people of the given country alone—especially if it is a historically oppressed country—and is none of the business of the leaders of a foreign government.

All democrats, as well as socialists if they are to remain consistent with their principles, must demand that the Obama administration and other imperialist governments halt their interference in the internal affairs of Syria and resume normal relations with the Syrian government. This should be done independently of whether or not we like or approve of the Bashar Assad government.

I expressed an opinion in a footnote that the movements in Libya and Syria are out of step with the movements against the U.S.-supported monarchies and dictatorships in other Arab countries. This opinion, I admit, goes counter to the view propagated in the 1 percent-controlled media that there is a common “Arab Spring” that includes the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions but also the overthrow of the government of Libya with the help of NATO’s bombers. The same false amalgam includes the movement attempting to overthrow the Syrian government with the support of the U.S. and Europe as well as the Arab League, which is dominated by reactionary Arab governments, many of them monarchies.

Read more …

The Bloody Rise of the Dollar System

The current dollar-centered international monetary system is the result of a century of competition among the capitalist nations, especially the imperialist countries. The competition that led to the current dollar system was not only economic but also political and not least military. The military competition took the form of not one but two of the bloodiest wars in world history.

Relationship between economic, political and military competition

Although there is not a one-to-one relationship between political-military and economic competition among capitalist countries, political-military competition is ultimately rooted in economic competition. So in examining competition among capitalist countries, we first have to look at economic competition. What are the economic laws that govern competition and trade among different capitalist countries?

First, let’s review the laws that do not govern international trade under the capitalist system. Using the quantity theory of money and, at least implicitly, Say’s Law, the (bourgeois) economists picture competition among capitalist nations as a friendly game in which everybody emerges the winner. Within each country, according to the economists, “full employment” reigns.

According to the modern marginalist economists, under perfect competition each “factor of production”—land represented by landowners, capital represented by capitalists, and labor represented by workers—gets back in rent on land, interest on capital, and the wages of labor precisely the value each creates. Our economists claim that as long as “perfect competition” exists, no “factor of production” can exploit another factor of production.

Similarly in world trade, every country benefits by “free trade.” According to the theory of comparative advantage, each country concentrates its production on what it is comparatively best at, not necessarily absolutely best at. According to this theory, even if a given country has a below-average level of labor productivity in every branch of production, there will always be some branch where it will enjoy a comparative advantage enabling it to prevail in international competition.

Therefore, if we are to believe the economists, countries that are deficient in modern productive forces benefit from international trade just as much as the countries that monopolize the world’s most advanced productive forces. The result, the economists claim, is the most efficient system of global production that the prevailing technical and natural conditions of production allow.

Read more …

Dean Baker on the Price of Oil

Recently, Mrzine, the online magazine of the Monthly Review Foundation, published the testimony of the left Keynesian economist Dean Baker to the U.S Congress. Baker attempted in his testimony to refute the claims made by right-wing bourgeois economists that the spike in oil and gasoline prices earlier this year was caused by the U.S. Federal Reserve Board’s policy of “quantitative easing.”

What is “quantitative easing”? And why has the U.S. Federal Reserve System, which under the dollar system acts in effect as the world’s central bank, been following such a policy?

Last year, the outbreak of the European sovereign debt crisis, followed by a distinct pause in the global economic recovery, brought fears of a renewed global recession. The U.S. Federal Reserve Board announced that it would purchase $600 billion worth of U.S. bonds in a bid to stave off a “double-dip” global recession. Or what comes to exactly the same thing, the Fed in effect announced that it was going to transform $600 billion in U.S. government debt into green U.S. paper dollars—or their electronic equivalent.

Since last December when the quantitative easing program actually kicked in—it had been announced earlier—the quantity of token money denominated in U.S. dollars has jumped by more than 35 percent. To put this number into perspective, during the prosperous post-World War II years, the quantity of U.S. token money rarely grew more than 3 percent per year.

Between May 21, 2010, and April 29, 2011, oil prices jumped almost 62 percent, peaking out at over $113 per barrel. In response, gasoline prices have soared. World food prices have also increased sharply in terms of the depreciated U.S. dollar.

Even before the explosion in the quantity of dollar token money began, speculators anticipating the expected increase in token dollars began to push up the dollar price of gold, oil and primary food commodities. The dollar price of gold rose from $1,177 per troy ounce on May 21, 2010, to $1,556 per troy ounce on April 29, 2011. Or what comes to exactly the same thing, the U.S. dollar in terms of gold was devalued against gold by more than 24 percent in the same period.

When speculators expect a change in the quantity, or rate of growth of the quantity, of token money, they act accordingly, causing currency prices of gold and primary commodities to change even before the expected change actually occurs. If the expected change fails to materialize, markets will then react sharply in the opposite direction. This is exactly what happened in late 2008. But this was not the case in 2010 and 2011, since this time the expected changes in the quantity of dollar token money have indeed fully materialized.

So it would seem on this issue that the right-wing bourgeois economists who blame the U.S. Federal Reserve System for the spiking oil, gasoline and food prices have a point, though the alternative might well have been a renewed global recession.

However, in his congressional testimony the progressive economist Dean Baker challenged the view that the Federal Reserve policies have had much to do with this year’s spiking oil and gasoline prices. (Baker didn’t deal with the question of food prices in his congressional testimony.) Since the MRzine editors decided that Baker’s testimony was worth publishing, it is worth examining Baker’s arguments in some detail.

Presumably, MRzine published Dean Baker’s testimony because the editors believe that Baker is the kind of left Keynesian that Marxists can and should be working with as part of Monthly Review’s general policy of attempting to push the U.S. economics profession back toward Keynesianism, which dominated it in the years immediately after World War II, as opposed to the neo-liberal theories that have dominated since the 1970s. Indeed, Baker as an economist is probably about as far to the left as you can get in the U.S. and still be a bourgeois economist. It is therefore instructive to examine Baker’s approach to the question of the recent rise in oil and gasoline prices.

Read more…

Are Marx and Keynes Compatible? Pt 7

Last week, I examined the letter Baran sent to Sweezy in 1960 that dealt with the concept of the “economic surplus.” Over the next two weeks, I will examine the letter Sweezy sent to Baran dated September 25, 1962, which deals with monopoly, capitalist stagnation and Keynes.

Sweezy and stagnation

Sweezy described himself as a “stagnationist.” In his mature writings, he came to believe that the “default” condition of monopoly capitalism is a state of “stagnation.” But what exactly did Sweezy mean by “stagnation”? To understand what he meant, we have to understand the traditional marginalism that formed the starting point of Sweezy’s economic studies.

Marginalist, or “neoclassical,” economics claims that a capitalist economy has a strong tendency toward full employment of both the means of production and workers. Remember, the marginalists hold that, assuming there are no unions or social legislation, the capitalist economy will have as its normal condition a situation of full employment of both the means of production and workers.

When Sweezy began his economic studies at Harvard before both the New Deal and the rise of the CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations), there was virtually no social legislation or social insurance of any kind in the United States. The union movement was very weak and, outside of mining, in basic large-scale industries was virtually nonexistent.

Therefore, according to marginalist theory the U.S. economy should have been very close to a situation of full employment of both the means of production and the workers. But in the early 1930s as Sweezy was studying economics at Harvard, the U.S. was facing an extreme crisis of mass unemployment. Clearly, there was something very wrong with the economics that Sweezy was learning.

Read more …

Are Marx and Keynes Compatible? Pt 6

In its December 2010 edition, Monthly Review published two letters by Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy to one another. One, dated May 2, 1960, by Baran deals with “the economic surplus” and its relationship to Marx’s surplus value. The other letter is by Sweezy to Baran dated September 25, 1962. In his letter to Baran, Sweezy has some very interesting things to say about the work of John Maynard Keynes and about monopoly and economic stagnation. This week, I will examine Baran’s letter to Sweezy, and next week I will deal with Sweezy’s letter to Baran.

Baran’s surplus

In “Monopoly Capital,” Marx’s category of surplus value was replaced by what Baran and Sweezy called the “the economic surplus.” Ever since “Monopoly Capital” was first published in 1966, there has been much confusion over whether “the surplus” is simply another term for surplus value or something else. If “the surplus” is simply another term for surplus value, what is gained by renaming the most important economic category in all of economics? If “the surplus” is something other than surplus value, what exactly is its relationship to surplus value?

Baran’s 1960 letter to Sweezy sheds some light on the question of “the surplus” and how it relates to surplus value. In his letter to Sweezy, Baran writes that the “surplus” was indeed something more than simply another name for surplus value, though he admitted he was having difficulty defining exactly what “the surplus” actually is. “We want to show,” Baran wrote, “that the sum total of profits, interest, rents + (and this is crucial!) swollen costs of distribution + advertising expenses + PR + legal departments + fins and chrome + faux frais [incidental operating expenditures] of product variation and model changes = economic surplus, and that this economic surplus increases both in absolute and relative terms under monopoly capitalism.”

But Baran then admits that he was having trouble defining “the economic surplus” in a precise way. “What it does hinge on, however,” Baran wrote to Sweezy, “is what you have called ‘vision’ combined with conceptual clarity. I think we have the former but I am having a dog’s time now with the latter [emphasis added—SW].”

The problem is, in my view, that Baran was mixing up different ideas under the catch-all concept of the “the economic surplus.” The result was “vision” without “conceptual clarity.”

Read more …

Bichler, Nitzan and Hudson versus Marx

Reader B asks what I think of the views expressed in two articles.

Article one is by two professors of political economy, Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan. Bichler teaches at colleges and universities in Israel, and Nitzan at York University in Canada. Article two is by U.S. economist Michael Hudson.

These two articles actually cover quite a lot of ground. Our reader correctly notices an echo of the views of the 19th-century American reformer Henry George. We can also see in these articles the influence of the Monthly Review School. The article by Bichler and Nitzan contains a long and I think revealing self-critical quote by Paul Sweezy that points straight to the weakness of the Monthly Review School.

Therefore, in these two articles we are dealing with three tendencies. One tendency represents the views of Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan . A second tendency is the viewpoint of Michael Hudson, and a third the Monthly Review School of Baran and Sweezy and their successors at Monthly Review magazine. Of the three tendencies, only one, Paul Sweezy and his Monthly Review School, is considered a tendency within Marxism. Neither Bichler, Nitzan nor Michael Hudson are Marxists.

Read more …