"Neither of these are "perfect" competition; though Marx's analysis implies equilibrium, I don't think that he believed it was ever achieved. The first one tends to destroy small firms, etc."
the new school marxists argue that their is a tendency for the rate of profit to equalize but it is disrupted by various factors such as technical change so that marx's theory is actually dynamic, where others see statics. "I don't think that his theory needs to be updated. His statement in his early POVERTY OF PHILOSOPHY that competition generates monopoly and _vice versa_ makes a lot of sense. It just needs to be made more concrete." have you read howard botwinick's book? (as an aside, i picked this book up off of amazon when it was at 30 dollars, now it's priced in the 100's, have i made a capital gain?:http://www.amazon.com/Persistent-Inequalities-Disparity-Capitalist-Competition/dp/0691042977) i think the new school marxist vision of competition is very developed. whether it's wrong in crucial respects, is another matter. a matter by the way, i'm curious to here discussed on pen-l. -- -Nathan Tankus ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
