David Shemano wrote:
> the left critiques of neoclassical economics is that neoclassical economics
> incorrectly assumes that markets are "natural" and not a creation of the
> rules of the political system, which reflect the interests of the powerful
> in that system.
The rules of the political system may well reflect the interests of the
powerful, but that doesn't mean that capitalism is a mechanism of
conscious design and intent, like a watch. Your question assumes that
markets are either "artificial" or "natural" and that the existence of
black markets seems to be evidence for their naturalness. The duality
itself is the problem. Markets are the result of social relations, which
are _both_ natural and artificial. It is the nature of humans to make
things. The concept of market is itself an abstraction that brings
together many different complexes of interaction and calls them by the
same name.
Black markets may be the same as stock markets or flower
markets in _some_ respects, but they are also different, as suggested by
the qualifying adjectives. Actually, though, black markets don't tell us
enough about markets to be able to understand a social system that
appears to be centered on the market. I said "appears to be" in the last
sentence because central to Marx's critique of political economy is the
claim that markets *express* production relations in a mystifying way --
they are neither the basis of nor the explanation for those production
relations.
Tom Walker
Sandwichman and Deconsultant
Bowen Island
(604) 947-2213
