>>> Jim Devine
In line with Baran's Frankfurt-school view, Baran & Sweezy's MC is
monolithic. (This is really clear in Baran's POLITICAL ECONOMY OF
GROWTH.) MC has won the battle, beating the working class. All
problems come from the edges, from non-mainstream forces like the
African-American people of the time or the alienated youth. (There
were no Barach Obama (mainstream) figures back then.)
^^^^
CB: Not disagreeing with you about the content of their thesis, but
late 40's , 50's was the high point in membership and influence of
organized labor, so, I'm wondering how that was a point in time that the
working class was beaten in comparison with other times.
^^^
> If it is not monopoly capitalism , does that mean that there is
free
> market capitalism today ? with no entities having significant
economic
> advantages or significantly more wealth than most others ? What is
the
> nature of non-monopoly/non-oligopoly capitalism ?
I don't really care about what it's called. Free market capitalism is
just as bad for working people as is monopoly or oligopoly capitalism.
^^^
CB: I was trying to recognize that in the past you have preferred the
term "oligopoly". I believe because there usually is not just one
("mono") dominant company in what is referred to as "monopoly" ( like
the old Big Three in auto).
I'm trying to think what is the significance of monopolization for the
working class if free market capitalism is the same in effect.
^^^^^
The "stage" that I see prevailing right now reflects the neo-liberal
policy revolution of the 1980s. It's part of the "weak labor" phase of
the 1970s to the present, an instant replay in many ways of the Gilded
Age or the 1920s. It differs from the "Keynesian liberal" or (soft)
"social democratic" capitalism of the 1950s and 1960s, during which we
had "strong labor" (especially in Western Europe).
--
^^^^^^^
