Re: (OPE-L) Re: Paresh Chattopadhyay 'Capital, The Progenitor of Socialism'

From: Paul Cockshott (clyder@GN.APC.ORG)
Date: Mon Jan 05 2004 - 18:48:29 EST

Paul Bullock wrote:
> Paul C response to DY's  statement  seems to me to be strange indeed.  Is PC
> stating that 'globalisation' ( whatever this is.......a more amorphous
> notion one would find hard to find!) has somehow abolished monopoly? Clearly
> then various EU / US state agencies are barking up wrong trees! quite apart
> from the serious disappointment in their careers that so many writers and
> 'economic' investigators  will now suffer at the hands of PC's discovery!
> What is actually clear is that relatively few producers/corporations  in the
> world, lets say 300, headquartered in very few states lets say 10, but
> mostly in the US, have a monopoly ( in the sensible sense of over 25% of the
> market ( UK Competition regs)), and that this 'monopoly' allows huge profits
> which are in part are used to provide payments to sections of the work force
> to ensure loyalty and stability to the system.

Limited monopolies exist in patented products, particularly in things
software, pharmaceuticals and recordings. These products are sold above
marginal value of production.

In addition ground rent also provides a monopoly factor in the oil

I am very skeptical of the proposition that the operation of the law of
is currently seriously disturbed by monopoly. The data we published in
years CJE for the US economy shows that monopoly where it does occur
only to partially offset the effects of high organic compostions of
and ensure that industries like oil, gas and electricity earn only
less than the average rate of profit - rather than much less - which one
would anticipate on the basis of their organic composition.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 06 2004 - 00:00:01 EST