On Mon, 08 Jan 2001, you wrote: > > That is, it's *Marx* who has insisted that this stronger version of capital > scarcity is required for the existence of > capitalist exploitation. So let Marx answer your question, again from Ch. > 33 of Volume I: > > "It is the great merit of E.G. Wakefield to have discovered, not something > new *about* the colonies, but, *in* the colonies, the true about capitalist > relations in the mother country....'If,' says Wakefield, 'all the members > of the society are supposed to possess equal portions of capital...no man > would have a motive for accumulating more capital than he could use with > his own hands. This is to some extent the case in new American > settlements, where a passion for owning land prevents the existence of a > class of labourers for hire.' So long, therefore, as the worker can > accumulate for himself--and this he can do so long as he remains in > possession of his means of production--capitalist accumulation and the > capitalist mode of production are impossible." [pp 932-33]. > > Gil This refers to a particular configuration of the means of production in which individual workers by their own - or at least their families - efforts could be self sufficient. This is possible in agriculture to some extent but it is not possible in modern industry. The material mode of production is the key. Without large scale machinery there is no dominance of the capitalist mode of production. -- Paul Cockshott, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland 0141 330 3125 mobile:07946 476966 paul@cockshott.com http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/people/personal/wpc/ http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/index.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 31 2001 - 00:00:03 EST