In fact, this Duhringian innovation is something that sections of the petty-bourgeois “Left” have incorporated into their own theories and explanations, long after Duhring himself was forgotten. The fetish of demonising monopolies is fundamental to the ideas of the petty-bourgeois “anti-capitalists”, as well as in the mercantilist theories of the “anti-imperialists” about unequal exchange, super-exploitation, and so on, and is, also, trotted out in every instance of shortages, panic buying and in attacks on price-gouging.
Engels responds.
“... even in the case of these monopolies, the man with the sword in his hand who is supposed to stand behind them is not to be found. On the contrary. If the man with the sword, the commandant, does his duty in cities under siege, as a rule he very soon puts an end to the monopoly and requisitions the monopolised stocks in order to distribute them equally.” (p 243)
Of course, these attempts to use force to “allocate equally” by administrative rationing, usually fail badly. They create black markets, corruption, and promote criminal activity. They also dissuade producers from producing and merchants from seeking out additional supplies from elsewhere. Moreover, in the era of imperialism, when it is monopoly capital that dominates, even the idea of monopoly pricing being the exception has to be considered again. If monopolies are an exception then that monopoly power enables them to obtain surplus profits, and consequently, other capitals obtain a lower average rate of profit. However, if monopoly is the rule, it is the small capitals that are the exception. On the same basis, therefore, monopolistic competition would mean that it is these monopolies that determine the average rate of profit, whilst the mass of small capitals obtain a lower than average rate of profit.
Engels refers to the inability of the state to simply dictate prices, including the price of capital, i.e. the rate of interest. And, in line with Marx's analysis in A Contribution To The Critique of Political Economy, showing that inflation is a monetary phenomenon, he describes the experience of Tsarist Russia, in that respect.
“... when the men with the sword have tried to fabricate a "distribution value", have reaped nothing but bad business and financial loss. The Dutch brought both their monopoly and their trade to ruin with their monopolisation of the East Indian trade. The two strongest governments which ever existed, the North American revolutionary government and the French National Convention, ventured to fix maximum prices, and they failed miserably. For some years now, the Russian government has been trying to raise the exchange rate for Russian paper money—which it is lowering in Russia by the constant emission of irredeemable banknotes—by the equally constant buying up in London of bills of exchange on Russia. In the last few years it has had to pay almost sixty million roubles for this pleasure, and the rouble now stands at under two marks instead of over three. If the sword has the magic economic power ascribed to it by Herr Dühring, why is it that no government has succeeded in permanently compelling bad money to have the “distribution value” of good money, or assignats to have the “distribution value” of gold? And where is the sword which is in command of the world market?” (p 243-4)
The proponents of MMT should take note.
No comments:
Post a Comment