Horizontal Relations: A Note on Brenner's Heresy

in Historical Materialism
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?

Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.


Have Institutional Access?

Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



One fundamental assumption seems to underlie – explicitly or implicitly – every critique of Brenner I have seen: that there can be no such thing as a Marxist theory of competition, the ‘horizontal’ relation among many capitals, that does not presuppose the ‘vertical’ class relation between capital and living labour. To start (if not also to end) with the relation between capital and living labour is the only way to establish one's Marxist credentials (establishing those credentials does, by the way, seem to be the critical, even the sole, issue for those who engage Brenner's argument on that plane, without considering the empirical or explanatory power of his argument). In support of that assumption, more than one critic has invoked Marx's comment that competition does not produce or explain capitalist laws of motion but merely executes them, as their visible manifestation in the external movements of individual capitals. Predictably, too, some critics have gleefully turned against Brenner the charge he has famously levelled against other Marxists: that his focus on competition and the market makes him a ‘neo-Smithian’.

Historical Materialism

Research in Critical Marxist Theory



Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 8 8 3
Full Text Views 3 3 3
PDF Downloads 1 1 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0