Just a quick note:
At this point, what seems most interesting are the vertical relations of capital: 1. the elongation of the period of production, in particular the addition of a dept for "the production of the means of production by the means of production" (what Marx took to be foundation for the real development of capitalism and which only Adolph Lowe has made central to theory through a critique of the Austrian concept of linear production, though much of what Lowe says was said by Bukharin first; Marxists have paid almost no attention to Marx himself or Lowe on the addition of this dept, call it Dept I A; does Pasinetti's concept of vertical integration help--how's your matrix algebra, eigenvalues, Frobenius Perroux Theorem and the like?) and 2. the "vertical" relationship between capital and labor purified for the purposes of theoretical analysis (Paul Mattick's work is the most important; you may know his critique of Baran and Sweezy in his Anti Bolshevik Communism, as well as Mario Cogoy's and Andrew Gamble and Paul Walton's; plus the repsonse of John Bellamy Foster to these critics--great debate; I hope we revisit it).
But I haven't been able to wrap my head around the horizontal relationships among capitals in the realm of competition or the problem of market structure generally. That's part of the problem I am having with Brenner. These vertical relations seem to me much more interesting.
Damn it, I still want to learn about that debate over the Hawaiian reception of Captain Cooked. Even found a book to help me understand the differences between a symbolic anthropology based on Pierce versus one based on Saussure. Milton Singer--The Glassy Existence. Looks great, even includes a chapter on the influence of Indian thought on Pierce.
bye, rakesh