From: "Michael Dawson -
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.
^^^^^ CB: Well, yes monopoly capital is monopoly capital :>) That's the point to be demonstrated or disproved. First , I hope we are not getting hung up on the difference between monopoly and oligopoly. GM, Toyota, Ford and Daimler are monopolies ,even though there isn't just one of them. The idea is Big Business, the Fortune 500. On the fact that they don't last forever , or the number goes up and down, that's dialectics, process. There are processes that tend toward bigger and bigger companies, but it's a fixed configuration.
I don't buy your claim that becoming a "political target" is a barrier to being a monopoly ( oligopoly). The bigger you are, the more powerful you are, i.e. less of a target, more of an archer.
The theory of monopoly capital does not posit that it occurs because it is the conscious goal of every entrepreneur, nor does it say it's the norm, if you mean most companies or the "average" companies are monopolies. In fact, the idea of monopoly capital is that the monopolies are a sort of privileged minority.
Yes, Lenin specifically discusses the fact that with the advent of monopoly competition gets _fiercer_. Monopoly competition arises. Did you think that Lenin claims there is a diminution of competition with the advent of monopoly capital ?
I know you have expressed dislike for use of dialectics, "sublation" and all that , but sorry, some of us don't agree. So, that the contradictory nature of monopoly competition is the normal type of thing we deal with.
^^^^^
Also, why do we want to retain fealty to Lenin.
^^^^^
CB: I gotta tell you I don't take well to insulting characterizations like this. I really have no evidence that your attitude toward your "mentors" is any more critical and non-fealty like than mine toward Lenin.
So, I have never had any "fealty" toward Lenin. It is more like a physicist's attitude toward Einstein or a biologist's attitude to Gould. Or political economist's attitude toward Marx. Respect for a great scientist and wise guy.
^^^^^
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.
^^^^^ CB: Central... or something like a necessary, major theorist in the history of Marxist political economy. Critical for linking the historical period that Marx and Engels were around to analyse to our own. Lenin is a sort of critical link.
Yes, we have one or two periods after Lenin's that must be theorized, but that is done based in part on their historical continuity and change with the period of imperialism that Lenin gave a main ,cogent Marxist understanding of.
We can 't understand the "21st Century" ( a suspicious unit of analysis) without understanding how it derives from the preceding historical periods.
^^^^
Besides, he certainly didn't elucidate any economic processes himself, so why complicate things?
^^^^^ CB: Himself ? You mean he had a ghostwriter like Shakespeare ? :>) Krupskaya was the real brains behind the revolution !
I'm not sure what you mean here. Something like _Imperialism_ was all Hilferding and Hobson. But , I don't think his theory is identical with theirs. I recall he specifically says , I think Hilferding has an erroneous theory of money, for example. But even if they agreed on everything, there is no rule like in elementary school against being a copy cat, if you get it right. Plus, for Marxists ,it is _political_ economy . Lenin is very good at elucidating the unity of politics and economics, class struggle, etc. the relationship of the state and the economic classes.
^^^^
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.
^^^^^
CB: I'd say he is a mostly accurate political theorist, proved his theory in practice. He changed the world more than anybody, pretty much.
He sure didn't alienate me when I was coming in. He made the difference for me. He is such an implacable and articulate opponent of the ruling classes. I don't know if he would be the first thing to bring up, but if you didn''t get him in eventually, you wouldn't really be a revolutionary theorist, (IMHO :>)) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20040303/552c6271/attachment.htm>