I don't get the definition of monopoly as hinging on inelastic demand, unless in contrast to the limiting case of perfectly elastic demand. Otherwise, monopolies can last a good long time, if not forever. So one doesn't escape their prominence under modern capitalism.
Re: disruption and misalignment, you could pile up all the leftish neo-classical arguments on why markets don't work, or are missing altogether, and save yourself some very heavy reading. That leaves out a lot, but along with a critique of income/wealth distribution and Galbraith's 'counter-vailing power,' it pretty well covers the low-lights of Capitalism. I suspect it is possible to trace a number of threads through to Keynes and Minsky, though I'm not the one to do it. So in that sense, if no other, Marx is underrated. Your 's' seems to be whatever isn't v or c. Circular reasoning? cheers. On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Julio Huato <[email protected]> wrote: > Random comments on Max's notes: > > > Often, especially in the early value theory sections, I get the feeling I > > could say the same thing in many fewer words. I've found this in other > Marx > > commentaries, so maybe I'm missing a lot. > > Maybe not. Maybe the problem is us: The way we've learned to think > about the issue. We may need to unlearn all that. In trying to > explain value and capitalist exploitation to my students, who come > with a strong sense that markets, inequality, and the state are > *natural*, I've come to see more clearly how the way we Marxists > traditionally present things gets in the way. > > > The account, due to Marx and not the guide, glosses over the salience of > > uncompetitive markets and monopoly industries. There is also some > > inconsistency between the premise that capitalists must invest to compete > > and the logic of a low- or zero-profit equilibrium that results from > stiff > > competition. > > Define a monopoly as a firm facing inelastic demand. In a > sufficiently long run, all demands are elastic, market power proves > to be illusory. That's the timeframe of Marx's analysis of > competition. Competition is the mode of being of capital. > > > As a bean-counter, I found myself wondering how anyone would measure any > of > > this stuff (s, c, v, etc.). Especially c. That doesn't mean it's useless, > > just limited in some ways. > > I think Marx was more than willing to make assumptions, simplify, etc. > to operationalize categories and get quick-and-dirty measures. He was > keenly aware of how the natural scientists had progressed through > operationalization and empirical measurement, often times against the > stream of the philosophical objections thrown at them. You can feel > it in the kind of examples he used to illustrate categories. Very few > Marxists would agree with me, but I strongly believe that the data > (public and private) now available, as is, would have been welcomed by > Marx and deemed highly. Not that he'd take them a-critically, but > he'd still think existing measurements of economic categories about > the best we can do with what we have. > > > The crisis discussion is murky. (Again, maybe the fault of Marx, if not > > Heinrich.) The decisive channel for crises, especially now, is the credit > > system -- so-called fictitious capital. We might excuse Marx for not > being > > around to witness the failure of finance in all its glory. I am not > > suggesting evil finance is separate from virtuous production -- I got off > > that wagon a while back. Minsky's account of financial breakdown, which I > > read as genuinely intrinsic to credit markets, is much more clear and > > compelling to me. > > Yes, credit. > > In the first few chapters of Capital, Marx shows that credit is much > like any other commodity exchange -- a transfer of contracts or of > legally-sanctioned promises. Exchanging a legal promise of present > wealth for another one (and that's what "regular" commodity exchange > is all about, on its legal sense) is not that different from > exchanging the *promise* of present wealth for the *promise* of future > wealth. Because all of them are *promises*, legally sanctioned ones. > So they are only as good as society is capable of enforcing them, > which is to say to mobilize resources to make them stick. > > You cannot say that commodity exchange is the exchange between two > pieces of physical wealth. No. We humans do not interface with > wealth directly, but always through our social structures -- our > relations of production, our legal and political structures, etc. So > pretty much everything that Marx wrote re. commodities extends with > some modification to so-called financial transactions. IMO, Marx's > merit is to have shown that, underlying all that traffic of legal > contracts, there was a set of effective or de-facto economic > dependences, not only among the individuals directly involved in the > contracts, but ultimately between them and the rest of society. Not > only that, but that below all these economic dependences or structures > lies a more fundamental *material metabolism* or, more simply said, > the production and consumption of *wealth*. Crises and all the > turbulence that we observe in the functioning of a capitalist society > come from the persistent misalignment and (disruptive) realignment > between these three layers of our social reality (say, as caused by > shifts in demographics, technology, and culture, which -- in Marx view > -- are also largely endogenous, i.e. products of the same total > process). In my view, this is the key to understanding finance and > connecting it to the need for socialism. Socialism then comes to be > viewed as a radically different way of keeping these three layers > aligned, by turning such alignment into a conscious process of, by, > and for the people. > > > Naive question: if market competition is so fierce, why can't workers > > capture surplus value? I can think of all kinds of reasons why they > don't, > > but none that are intrinsic to the basic value relation. > > If workers can systematically appropriate some of the surplus value > they produce, then that surplus value gets redefined as variable > capital/workers' income. By definition, surplus value is value > produced by the workers that gets appropriated by the capitalists. If > the capitalists cannot snatch that value, then it's not surplus value. > > > On the whole, the book gave me some motivation to try (again) to crack > > Capital. > > Nice. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
