Paul B:
"
Dogan
My response to you doesn't distinguish between the two, so I'm not sure what your question aims at. In the Smith quote 'free trade' could easily be read as 'free market', as you did. However my point was that Smith thought it impossible to obtain 100% free trade. This is not the same as the point you made to Jerry ie that fhe thought free trade was an illusion.
That is all I was saying."
Reply:
Well then, Paul, you have to read the paragraph as a whole. In the paragraph under consideration Smith points to new developments in the structure of the concentration of capital in particular and capitalist ("commercial") society in general. When he refers to the concept of free trade (as it was used long before him by many philosophers) he means by that the approximately equal distribution of capital in the hands manufacturers ("masters"). That would cause a kind of the "balance of power". In this situation no one one of the manufacturer can dominate the market and dictate the prices. This is what he means by free trade. No more. In the paragraph under consideration he points out that (due to the concentration of capital) certain manufacturers obtained a dominating position in the market so that they can dictate the prices. Therefore, free trade is no longer possible. However he goes further. He has the whole society in view. He observes that due to their power certain manufacturers can dominate the parliaments and determine political decision process. This means that the state is no longer relatively independent in the face of competition among manufacturers. So, therefore, looking back to the exploration of the use of the concept of free trade in the sense of the balance of power he asserts that the concept of free trade is historically no longer applicable. Thus, it is an illusion.
When I discuss with Marxist scholars from USA or the UK I realise that they still suffer from Regonomy or Thatcherism. They do not assess Smith on the basis of his contribution to the development of philosophy and science or of what he really says but on that what he has been made by neoliberals. Marx describes Smith as a scientist not as an apologist and Lenin points to classical political economy as one of the most important three sources of Marxism. If we try to read Smith as a scientist some of the interpretative dilemmas may be solved as they are not there.
D.Göçmen
http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/
http://www.dogangocmen.blogspot.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Bullock <paulbullock@ebms-ltd.co.uk>
To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
Sent: Thu, Nov 19, 2009 11:17 pm
Subject: Re: [OPE] intermission: value of knowledge
Dogan
My response to you doesn't distinguish between the two, so I'm not sure what your question aims at. In the Smith quote 'free trade' could easily be read as 'free market', as you did. However my point was that Smith thought it impossible to obtain 100% free trade. This is not the same as the point you made to Jerry ie that fhe thought free trade was an illusion.
That is all I was saying.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: D. Göçmen
To: ope@lists.csuchico.edu
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:38 PM
Subject: Re: [OPE] intermission: value of knowledge
Paul,
I thank you for consideration. Can you please explore a bit more on the difference between free trade and free market?
D.Göçmen
http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/
http://www.dogangocmen.blogspot.com/
-----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung-----
Von: Paul Bullock <paulbullock@ebms-ltd.co.uk>
An: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
Verschickt: Do., 19. Nov. 2009, 1:11
Thema: Re: [OPE] intermission: value of knowledge
Thanks Dogan, then what you meant was that Smith said complete free trade, its 100% extension, was an illusion not , as you said before, that the considered 'the idea of free market and free trade (per se.- PBl) is an illusion', which is different.
Thanks for allowing me to quickly address my concerns.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: D. Göçmen
To: ope@lists.csuchico.edu
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: [OPE] intermission: value of knowledge
Dear Paul, the paragraph I was thinking of is this (WN, IV.ii.43/p. 471):
"To expect, indeed, that the freedom of trade should ever be entirely
restored in Great Britain, is as absurd as to expect that an Oceana or
Utopia should ever be established in it. Not only the prejudices of the
* publick, but what is much more unconquerable, the private interests of
many individuals, irresistibly oppose it. Were the officers of the army to
oppose with the same zeal and unanimity any reduction in the number of
forces, with which master manufacturers set themselves against every law
that is likely to increase the number of their rivals in the home market;
were the former to animate their soldiers, in the same manner as the latter
enflame their workmen, to attack with violence and outrage the proposers
of any such regulation; to attempt to reduce the army would be as dangerous
as it has now become to attempt to diminish in any respect the
monopoly which our manufacturers have obtained against us. This
monopoly has so much increased the number of some particular tribes of
them, that, like an overgrown standing army, they have become formid-
[2oT]able to the government, and upon many occasions intimidate the
legislature, s9 The member of parliament who supports every proposal for
strengthening this monopoly, is sure to acquire not only the reputation of
understanding trade, but great popularity and influence with an order of
men whose numbers and wealth render them of great importance. If he
opposes them, on the contrary, and still more if he has authority enough to
be able to thwart them, neither the most acknowledged probity, nor the
highest rank, nor the greatest publick services can protect him from the
most infamous abuse and detraction, from personal insults, nor sometimes
from real danger, arising from the insolent outrage of furious and disappointed
monopolists."
D.Göçmen
http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/
http://www.dogangocmen.blogspot.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Bullock <paulbullock@ebms-ltd.co.uk>
To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
Sent: Sat, Nov 14, 2009 1:36 am
Subject: Re: [OPE] intermission: value of knowledge
Dogan... have you refs to Adam Smith saying this... ie 'illusion'?
Paul B.
----- Original Message -----
From: D. Göçmen
To: ope@lists.csuchico.edu
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: [OPE] intermission: value of knowledge
With minor editing again:
"Good point, Jerry. As Marx pointed out in *Grundrisse* the idea of *free market* implies a market without market forces even if we leave out the state. Already Smith pointed out that the idea of free market and free trade is an illusion. More generally, Engels, in his investigation into the concept of competition, pointed out that the division of labout resulting in private property implies some kind of monopolies and therefore power relations. Remember what Marx says about the dision of labour and private property in Capital: the divison of labour does not require private property as in a factory but private property does always."
D.Göçmen
http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/
http://www.dogangocmen.blogspot.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerald Levy <jerry_levy@verizon.net>
To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
Sent: Fri, Nov 13, 2009 3:28 pm
Subject: Re: [OPE] intermission: value of knowledge
> What is different about knowledge is that it has high returns to scale,
> but as Michael has pointed out, capitalism has difficulty with all
> industries characterised by high returns to scale. It is forced to
> abandon the idea of the free market and resort to monopoly in
> these cases, whether it be railways or software publishing.
Hi Paul C:
Even where there are more competitive markets, the "free market" doesn't exist. One can only conceive of the possibility of a free
market in the absence of a state, yet where the capital-form has
existed historically so has the state-form. "Free market capitalism"
is not a historical construct, it is an ideological one.
Regarding the point that labor has to be expended preserving
the material carriers of knowledge, that's true but it can also be
vanishingly small. What, for instance, is the labor required to preserve a Class 6 SHDC and the data which has been stored in it? What's even more to the point is that although there is such preservation labor required, it doesn't correspond to the value of
the knowledge.
In solidarity, Jerry
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Sat Nov 21 02:19:53 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 30 2009 - 00:00:02 EST