Suchergebnisse

"Economics and Power criticizes the main theories of power developed in economic literature, analyzing ultraliberal contractualism to radical political economics, and ultimately suggesting a Marxist conception of power and coercion in capitalism. Palermo's ontological argument is rooted in the philosophy of 'critical realism'. This unique volume presents his main finding as being that the essential coercive mechanism of capitalism is competition. Capitalist power is not caused by a lack of competition, but by the central role it plays in this mode of production. Following this, the chapters reconstruct a Marxian conception of power where it is analyzed as a social relation and argues that perfect competition does in fact exist under the disguise of capitalist power. This book criticizes the construct of power and the underlying ideas surrounding perfect competition."--Publisher's website

Is there any difference between Alchian and Demsetz's ultra-liberalism and Bowles and Gintis's radicalism? My answer is that, ontologically and methodologically, there is none. Their common neoclassical methodology results in the same conception of power as incompatible with Walrasian competition, and the sole difference between them concerns the extension of power and competition in reality. Notwithstanding Bowles and Gintis's labelling as 'radicals', their conception coincides with the liberal view that sees competition as a natural and universal mode of social interaction, rather than as the historical product of the process of commodification that characterises capitalism.