Monday , February 17 2020
Home / Post-Keynesian / Literature Distinguishing Large Corporations And Finance From Competitive Firms

Literature Distinguishing Large Corporations And Finance From Competitive Firms

Summary:
A considerable body of literature has been published, during the last century, arguing that a movement away from competitive markets must be recognized in trying to describe and understanding contemporary capitalism. The literature I am thinking of emphasizes big business, corporations, and finance. Here are some selections, not all of which I have read: Rudolf Hilferding (1910). Finance Capital: A study of the latest phase of capitalist development. Adolfe A. Berle and Means (1932). The Modern Corporation and Private Property. Bruno Rizzi (1939). The Bureaucratization of the World James Burnham (1941). The Managerial Revolution: What is happening in the world. Joseph Schumpeter (1950). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy Josef Steindl (1952). Maturity and Stagnation in American

Topics:
Robert Vienneau considers the following as important: ,

This could be interesting, too:

Robert Vienneau writes Reswitching With Markup Pricing And Fixed Capital

Mike Norman writes Karl Marx’s Law of Value in the Twilight of Capitalism — Murray Smith

Robert Vienneau writes Why Does The Labor Theory Of Value Work Empirically As A Theory Of Prices?

Mike Norman writes Productivity, Labor Complexity, and Wage Determination Procedures — Peter Cooper

A considerable body of literature has been published, during the last century, arguing that a movement away from competitive markets must be recognized in trying to describe and understanding contemporary capitalism. The literature I am thinking of emphasizes big business, corporations, and finance. Here are some selections, not all of which I have read:

I find that I have provided a similar list before. If I wanted to include journal articles, I would say something about Paulo Sylos-Labini. There was a nearby literature arguing the convergence of different systems across, say, the first and second worlds. Another related literature develops theories of imperialism, especially in the context of north-south relations.

As I understand it, many of the above writers were influenced by Marx. But I think even those who accepted the labor theory of value for competitive conditions, argued that the developments they were writing about implied that it no longer applies. For instance, Baran and Sweezy replaced surplus value by the (non-quantitative?) concept of the economic surplus. I was surprised to find myself arguing against this conclusion in recent work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *