http://www.t0.or.at/delanda/a-market.htm
Ist etwas lang, Auszug:
First of all, if capitalism has always relied on non-competitive
practices, if the prices for its commodities have never been
objectively set by demand/supply dynamics, but imposed from above by
powerful economic decision-makers, then capitalism and the market
have always been different entities. To use a term introduced by
Braudel, capitalism has always been an "antimarket". This, of course,
would seem to go against the very meaning of the word "capitalism",
regardless of whether the word is used by Karl Marx or Ronald Reagan.
For both nineteenth century radicals and twentieth century
conservatives, capitalism is identified with an economy driven by
market forces, whether one finds this desirable or not. Today, for
example, one speaks of the former Soviet Union's "transition to a
market economy", even though what was really supposed to happen was a
transition to an antimarket: to large scale enterprises, with several
layers of managerial strata, in which prices are set not taken. This
conceptual confusion is so entrenched that I believe the only
solution is to abandon the term "capitalism" completely, and to begin
speaking of markets and antimarkets and their dynamics.
Wenn man sich darauf einigen könnte von Marktkräften und
Antimarktkräften zu reden könnte man sich dann vielleicht
"sinnvoller" streiten (?)
MfG
Ist etwas lang, Auszug:
First of all, if capitalism has always relied on non-competitive
practices, if the prices for its commodities have never been
objectively set by demand/supply dynamics, but imposed from above by
powerful economic decision-makers, then capitalism and the market
have always been different entities. To use a term introduced by
Braudel, capitalism has always been an "antimarket". This, of course,
would seem to go against the very meaning of the word "capitalism",
regardless of whether the word is used by Karl Marx or Ronald Reagan.
For both nineteenth century radicals and twentieth century
conservatives, capitalism is identified with an economy driven by
market forces, whether one finds this desirable or not. Today, for
example, one speaks of the former Soviet Union's "transition to a
market economy", even though what was really supposed to happen was a
transition to an antimarket: to large scale enterprises, with several
layers of managerial strata, in which prices are set not taken. This
conceptual confusion is so entrenched that I believe the only
solution is to abandon the term "capitalism" completely, and to begin
speaking of markets and antimarkets and their dynamics.
Wenn man sich darauf einigen könnte von Marktkräften und
Antimarktkräften zu reden könnte man sich dann vielleicht
"sinnvoller" streiten (?)
MfG