Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 10:49:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Stijn Oosterlynck <stijn_oost-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [postanarchism] anarchism & markets/De Landa


Hi,

I think that De Landa’s is absolutely right to distinguish markets and
capitalism and claim that the economy is a hetoregenous collection of
processes, but I doubt whether the dichotomy market/antimarkets will
lead us very far in grasping the complexity and heterogeneity of really
existing markets.  By taking the market as the reference point for
categorizing different economic methods of co-ordination, he risks to
obscure the large variety in ‘really existing markets’ and market
competition (spot markets vs fixed-price markets, arm’s length
contracting vs relational contracting, strong vs weak competition,
spatial segmentation, …) and to collapse non-market mechanisms of
co-ordination such as networks, democratic control, central planning all
in the anti-market category.  

On one side, one should keep in mind that capitalist firms
(‘anti-markets’ according to Braudel) are not simply alternative for
markets.  Markets do not produce anything, whereas firms do produce
things.  However, to co-ordinate the division of labour both market and
planning (and other) mechanisms are used.  The choice for a specific mix
of planning/market/network/… is ultimately a choice for the extent of
and way to integrate productive activities.  Analyzing the variety of
factors that go into decisions to integrate/disintegrate productive
activities will require more than a distinction between markets and
anti-markets (among others serious consideration of the materiality of
the division of labour, something which has often been ignored by
Marxists).           

For sure, De Landa recognizes some of the ways in which different
economic modes of co-ordination can be articulated (eg. networks and
markets in Silicon Valley), but it is my impression that he uses the
market/anti-market dichotomy uncritically as a shorthand in such a way
as to make sure that the complex issues described above would not
disturb his idealised view on market competition between small-scale
businesses (not unlike the neo-classical perfect competition zealots)
and his  celebratory account of the network economy.  

Economic networks are not necessarily an antidote to capitalist
domination, neither are small-scale businesses inherently more
democratic (in the sense that they offer more freedom of choice for
individual producers or protect them from exploitation or domination). 
For example, many small-scale businesses work as subcontractors for
multinationals and do so because they are highly specialised in one
niche (in which those multinationals are at any particular moment not
interested) or help multinationals to deal more flexibly with market
uncertainty.  We should thus not overlook that the minimum of central
control and the maximum of flexibility that characterises the clusters
of small-scale businesses which De Landa is referring to can also be a
highly suitable form of social organization for the anarchic side of
capitalism (cfr. Storper and Walker).      

That is not to say that a network economy of small-scale businesses does
not have us anything to offer in terms of freedom from domination in the
workplace or that the current economic models should not be
fundamentally revised.  However, I do not think there is a need to throw
away all insights of Marxist or liberal economic theory.  The Regulation
Approach for example has combined marxism and economic institutionalism
in a quite interesting way.  Finally, I would recommend Andrew Sayer’s
‘Radical Political Economy’.  It is not written from an anarchist or
post-structuralist perspective, but on the basis of a profound knowledge
of both liberal and Marxist political economy, it develops wonderful
insights on the division of labour, markets and other modes of
co-ordination, ownership and economic power (this may also be
interesting for the idea of ‘material equality’), uneven development, …

Best,
Stijn 

--- Paul Jacobson <pj-AT-cutlerco.com.au> wrote:
> hi all,
> 
> i've been watching a streaming video of a presentation by Manuel De 
> Landa called 'Democracy, Economics and the Military' in which he 
> discusses Ferdinand Braudel's thesis that markets and capitalism are 
> separate entities. <rtsp://81.3.51.68/platform1_vienna/de_landa.rm>
> 
> Delanda has also explored this theme in an essay "Markets, 
> AntiMarkets and the Internet" 
>
<http://textz.gnutenberg.net/textz/de_landa_manuel_markets_antimarkets_and_network_economies.txt>.
> 
> Delanda's work in this area has sparked my interest so I'm looking 
> for recommendations  for readings on the idea of 
> anarchist/non-capitalist markets - not anarcho-capitalism - as i'm 
> currently of the working through the idea that the ideal of material 
> equality is is a highly problematic concept.
> 
> peace
> pj


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/