Re: [OPE] capitalism as a * * * system

From: Michael Webber <>
Date: Wed May 25 2011 - 19:17:02 EDT

well, paula, it seems that capital didn't always appear as many capitals.
if we accept that stalinist ussr and eastern europe were state capitalist,
then they had single capitals. [of course, there were different states...]
so your question could be posed: what did state capitalism fail? i'd
venture the view that many-capitals capitalism was technically more dynamic
and became able to out-compete single-capital capitalism.

On 26 May 2011 08:58, Paula <> wrote:

> Howard wrote:
> "actually Marx is pretty clear that the concept of 'capital in general'
> does
> not extend to any consideration of competition".
> We should also point out that, even at this level of abstraction, capital
> has certain freedoms - crucially, the freedom to exploit labor. This
> freedom
> is also not absolute, it has limits that are biological, cultural,
> political, etc. Nevertheless it's real and important.
> The really interesting and difficult question is whether the freedom to
> compete (also real and important, though limited) is already contained in
> germ within this more abstract concept of 'capital in general'. Or, to ask
> the question in a different form, why does capital always appear as 'many
> capitals', even in the era of imperialism, when monopolistic tendencies and
> state regulation are at their most developed?
> Paula
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list

Michael Webber
Professorial Fellow
Department of Resource Management and Geography
The University of Melbourne
Mail address: 221 Bouverie Street, Carlton, VIC 3010
Phone: 0402 421 283

ope mailing list
Received on Wed May 25 19:17:53 2011

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 31 2011 - 00:00:02 EDT