Thanks for your thoughtful comments. The 'fundamental
contradiction' in Marx's analysis within capitalism surely lies in
the way in which surplus labour is appropriated - by whom and how.
The production and accumulation of surplus value takes place on the
basis of fragmented ownership, which is archetyically private but can
also be partly-socialised (the JSC) or 'public' (state ownership) or
indeed 'cooperative'. Maybe the implications of such different
ownership types can't reelly be addressed at a very abstract level
- they emerge in specific historical and geographical circumstances.
It does seem to me to be significant that the (fragmented!)
capitalist classes of the world have with great determination rolled
back 'public' ownership because it contains the seeds of a planned
economy in which labour might no longer be alienated.
Finally, the 'monopoly' issue is maybe only relevant in two ways:
first, it affects the distribution of surplus-value among
capitalists, and secondly, it paves the way politically for public
ownership. In terms of business behaviour and the dynamic of
competition, it is a red herring, a distraction from the more
important issues.
I am really sorry, but at the moment I have very little time to take
part in email discussions. It is intrinsically a great deal more
interesting than most of my teaching and administration work, and I
will continue if I can, but forgive me if my contributions are
sporadic and delayed.
By the way, I am not much good at email technology. Is this going to
the list, or just to you?
Hugo
Hugo Radice
Division of Industrial and Labour Studies,
Leeds University Business School,
University of Leeds,
Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.
tel: 44-113-233-4507; fax 44-113-233-2640
email: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|