I think context is needed to clarify this issue. Petty criminals and even large drug lords aren't part of the bourgeoisie, they are living on a fringe of society. Lumpenproletariat would correctly describe most of them, as they are not able to work within "legitimate" "productive" capitalist production.
Therefore trying to fit them into the logic of capitalist accumulation is a lot of fun, but probably irrelevant. Jason Mann -----Original Message----- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Daniel Davies Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:28 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEN-L] more from Daniel Davies yes I see what you mean, but they're local, spatial monopolies. What I was trying (poorly) to say is that there isn't an overall tendency toward concentration. -----Original Message----- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jim Devine Sent: 24 March 2006 23:54 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: more from Daniel Davies DD writes: >Obviously, the managers of a successful criminal enterprise can, if they launder them, invest their profits in the legitimate economy, but that is not the same thing. In particular, it appears to me as if there is no genuine accumulation in the criminal economy, no tendency toward monopoly and no likelihood of overproduction or underconsumption crises. Criminal gangs rise and fall due to non-economic factors.< But criminal gangs usually involve monopoly. They monopolize the drug trade (in a specific area), the usury market, illegal gambling & prostitution, etc. On 3/24/06, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > He even mentions some illustrious members of this list. > > http://d-squareddigest.blogspot.com/2006_03_19_d-squareddigest_archive.html# 114315195116297548 > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu > -- Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles
