|
I’m familiar with the Marxian tradition, but it’s
hard to think of a “monopoly corp” as “poor.” I tend to react to the over-use of the term “monopoly”.
Though it’s not like there’s a single definition of the term
(handed down from on high by the gods or some convention of learned economists),
“monopoly” literally means “single seller” (by
implication, in a single market). The term “monopoly” is often used as a way of
criticizing the corps, going beyond the literal definition. But it’s also
in the Marxian tradition that capitalist competition can be just as bad as
monopoly, since both involve merely the distribution of surplus-value and both
are based on exploitation (the production of surplus-value). In some ways, a
capitalist monopoly can be better than competition, since it’s possible
that a big firm can successfully be made subject to pressure from labor unions
and progressive governments. A “monopoly” can afford to give up a
little of its surplus-profits to clean up the environment, for example, while a
competitive firm is so desperate to survive competition that it will resist to
the end (unless all of the competitors are subject to the same regulation --
but somehow the little firms seldom see this and act as if they were the only
ones subject to the law). (Of course, a big company is more likely to have
political influence, too, while competitive firms try to unite politically.) There’s another use of the word monopoly in Marxian
political economy, i.e., that the capitalists have a monopoly on the ownership
of the means of production and subsistence. Jim Devine, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; web:
http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/ > -----Original Message----- > From: > Brown > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 7:24 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L] GM to lock in loan rates for 10 years > > Sounds like desperation. > > > > Michael Perelman > > > > ^^^^^^ > > CB: Like "Poor little monopoly corp" ... > > > > GM's hardly a monopoly (exceed as loosely defined as
"big"). It's facing > all sorts of competition from > JD > > > ^^^^^^ > CB: Yes, "bigness" is part of this concept of
monopoly. This is relative > bigness, and, obviously adds to the company's ability
to dominate in some > economic arena. > > Are you familiar with the political economic tradition
that considers that > monopolization _increases_ , not decreases, competition
in a number of > ways > ? It is termed monopoly competition and is more vicious
than free > competition. This tradition is specifically aware of
the arguments you > make > against the use of the term "monopoly" to
apply to a GM, but doesn't > accept > your conclusion, and thus continues to use the term
"monopoly" as I do > here. > > > Or maybe you have a monopoly on the use of the term
"monopoly". > > Here's one short statement of the idea of this nameless
political economic > tradition: > > > 10. DOES MONOPOLY END COMPETITION? > > No. It reduces competition in the area covered by the
monopoly, while > accentuating it in other fields -- e.g., between
monopoly capitalists and > non-monopoly capitalists and between rival groups of
monopolists in the > same > or different countries. > > ^^^^^ > CB: So, the idea of monopoly here does not exclude the
possibility of > competition with foreign monopolies , like > investigated the extent to which > > What is the nature of the competition between GM , Ford
and Daimler- > Chrysler > ? Why are there only three/two > 150 > as at the beginning of the carmaking age ? > > "Monopoly" refers to the history of the car
companies as well. GM is a > winner, along with Ford, in the long term history of
competition among > U.S.based-owned car manufacturers. Most competitors
have been eliminated. > That is an illustration of monopoly growing out of
competition as > theorized > by Marx. It is really not such an odd idea. > > > > "Imperialism cannot eliminate competition. 'In
fact it is this combination > of antagonistic principles, viz, competition and
monopoly, that is the > essence of imperialism, ...' " |
