Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 21:32:10 +0100 From: Heikki Patomaki <user-AT-nigd.u-net.com> Subject: RE: BHA: Radical Chains Indeed Tobin is quite correct in saying: >Re markets, I'm a little puzzled by the discussion, especially Howard's >position, which seems to say that markets imply capitalism. My >understanding was always that the mode of production conditions the mode of >distribution (not vice versa), and that there are and have been plenty of >markets in non-capitalist societies (e.g. in classical Athens, where the >dominant mode of production was slavery). Money may be necessary in >capitalism, but it's used elsewhere and a society is only capitalist if >*labor power* is commodified, no? IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE CONFUSION STEMS FROM THE INABILITY TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN MARKETS AND CAPITALIST OWNERSHIP: Capitalism is constituted by absolute and exclusive private property, and presupposes a market-based system of exchange. This is consistent with the facts that in the really existing capitalism (i) state (or inter-nationalised state structures) not only provides the infrastructure and the regulatory framework of capitalism but also intervenes in many other ways in the functioning of the economy, and (ii) intra-firm transactions and planned transfer prices of big corporations account for a substantial part of all global transactions. What is crucial is that capitalism is a system of ownership and control of means of production; market is a system of economic exchange. Capitalism presupposes markets, but not vice versa. Also in non-capitalist contexts, economic exchange can be based mostly or largely on price-setting markets. Moreover, as said, in capitalism, a major part of transactions occurs within organisations, in a planned manner. THE CONFUSION IS ALSO DELIBERATE IN THE DISCOURSE OF THE WASHINGTON CONSENSUS; TODAY, IT IS NOT ALL MARKET, IT IS RATHER ALL CAPITALISM. HOPE THIS HELPS, HEIKKI P.S.1. References to the Marx's theory of value makes me somewhat puzzled. Basically, it seems to me that Marx agreed with Lockean theory of justice, namely that the product of work belongs to the person working. It is only that in capitalism the capitalists take the surplus of the workers' product, and this is the hidden secret of capitalism. In this sense, Marx's moral theory was based on the doxa of capitalism, or perhaps in a Rawlsian way, on the "overlapping consensus". But that was the doxa of the 19th century. One of the very few things that the neoclassical economists got right was the criticism of the Lockean/Ricardian/ Marxian theory of value as an explanation of prices in the market place. Thus the famous problem of transformation, that was never resolved in the Marxist camp (some, such as Straffa, inverted the neoclassical method, and tried to rewrite the theory, but never succeeded in going beyong few interesting provocations). Unless one comes up with a resolution of the problem of transformation, it is very hard to see how the labour theory of value could be anything but a purely normative theory, NOT an exlanatory theory of price- formation in a market economy. PS.2. B.t.w., Roberto Mangabeira Unger's "Democracy Realized. The Progressive Alternative", Verso 1998, and its massive 3-volume predecessor "False Necessity" (Cambridge University Press, 1987), discusses in great programmatic detail a democratic alternative to capitalism (some 1000 pages all together). Yet (even) it fails to address issues of global political economy seriously. Unger, too, says he is a scientific realist. I would love to see a critical realist engagement with this work and its silences (in fact, much more than an engagement with Hume). PS.3. But I do agree, also with the Habermasians, that there are many spheres of life in which there should be no "market", whether capitalist or not. Capitalist markets can destroy the society quickly -- as Thatcher wanted to have it, and succeeded at least in the UK -- but there are many contexts in which non-capitalist markets too would be quite inappropriate. At 11:06 AM 4/26/00 -0700, you wrote: >Tobin and Colin -- > >No, markets don't imply capitalism -- there are precapitalist markets and >postcapitalist markets. Markets do imply commodity production and Marx does >give a real definition of commodity production -- commodity production >occurs whenever separate entities produce things useless to them which they >exchange in independent transactions with other separate entities. (The >difficulty of the definition is in saying "separate" or "private" or >"autonomous" simply.) Where this exists you unleash the tendential forces >which generate markets and money and, in the end, capital. Of course, as >Colin sugests there have historically been markets without money (though not >without commodities), but no one is suggesting that socialist emancipation >will lead to a bartar economy. > >As for your definition of markets, Colin, "a >system which facilitates the exchange of objects (which are different from >commodities)," everybody is entitled to their own opinion, as they say, but >this sounds more like a pomo axiom than a scientific one. It is certain >that you could not present a scientific analysis of capitalism making use of >the category markets as you have defined it without ptolemaic contortions >that in the end would come down to something like the definition I gave >above. > >By the way, the quote Colin gives from MOM seems to me altogether accurate: >"Emancipatory socialist action will involve transforming the market - more >precisely, abolishing some markets, >socialising and democratising others." (p.30). It is certain that the >transition to socialism involves exactly this. But that doesn't mean >markets are forever or that they would be part of a communist society. > >Howard > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Tobin Nellhaus [mailto:nellhaus-AT-gis.net] >Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 5:12 AM >To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu >Subject: Re: BHA: Radical Chains Indeed > > >Hi all-- > >I'm not sure what is desired as a sustained critique of Hume, but there do >seem to be some fair passages in both RTS and SRHE. > >Re markets, I'm a little puzzled by the discussion, especially Howard's >position, which seems to say that markets imply capitalism. My >understanding was always that the mode of production conditions the mode of >distribution (not vice versa), and that there are and have been plenty of >markets in non-capitalist societies (e.g. in classical Athens, where the >dominant mode of production was slavery). Money may be necessary in >capitalism, but it's used elsewhere and a society is only capitalist if >*labor power* is commodified, no? > >--- >Tobin Nellhaus >nellhaus-AT-mail.com >"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce > > > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > ---------------------------------- Heikki Patomaki Network Institute for Global Democratisation (NIGD) http://www.nigd.u-net.com Helsinki & Nottingham e-mail: heikki-AT-nigd.u-net.com tel: +358 - (0)40 - 558 2916 (GSM) +44 - (0)774 - 711 24 35 (GSM) ALSO: Department of International Studies Nottingham Trent University Clifton Lane Nottingham NG11 8NS The United Kingdom e-mail: heikki.patomaki-AT-ntu.ac.uk tel: +44 - (0)115 - 948 6610 fax: +44 - (0)115 - 948 6385 --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005