[lbo-talk] Monopoly capital ( was Delong)

[Michael Dawson -PSU]

Because monopoly capital is not monopoly capital -- i.e., as Doug notes
above, monopoly is neither the goal nor the norm.  On one side, the biggest
firms don't want to become true monopolies, because that makes them easy
political targets.  On the other, as Doug says, it's still a competitive
system, even if the competition doesn't take Adam Smith's idealized form of
headlong price wars.

Also, why do we want to retain fealty to Lenin.  Lenin deserves to be known
and understood and even, at some level, appreciated.  IMHO, he does not,
however, deserve to be so central a figure in our efforts to understand and
explain the political economy to the citizens of the 21st century.  Besides,
he certainly didn't elucidate any economic processes himself, so why
complicate things?  He was an important (and mostly erroneous) political
theorist, and the head of history's first stab at socialism.  Beyond those
two things, he is over-rated, and will only serve to alienate our audience
and potential comrades.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Charles Brown" <cbrown at michiganlegal.org>
To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 2:38 PM
Subject: [lbo-talk] Monopoly capital ( was Delong)


>
> From: "Michael Dawson -PSU" <mdawson at pdx.edu>
>
>
> I also think "corporate capital" is a better concept, both scientifically
> and politically, than "monopoly capital."
>
> ^^^^^^
> CB: How come ?
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk