This continues the discussion with John E, who writes: >For the sake of those attempting to follow our discussion, I've >reproduced your post at the end of this one. Let me state my >agreement with your idea that a necessary condition for capitalism >is the existence of a class without property or, more exactly, >without the means of production. Here both of us follow Marx. > > >Further, I think we agree that if everybody has, say, 40 acres >and mule with which he or she can produce enough to meet his or her >needs capitalsis would, at least, find it difficult to find workers. >This is more or less the sense of the Wakefield passage below. > >But once capital accumulates things change. That is, it is >easy to imagine each of us owning and using his or her own >means of production in a society that is more or less in a >precapitalist state. But once capitalism has revolutionized >the means of production, how do we even imagine an equal >distribution of the means of production? Hence, I find >it difficult to grasp your idea that because capitalism >requires a propertyless people, distributing property >"equally" would end capitalist exploitation. Spefically, >I have no idea what that distribution would look like >given that the means of production are those of the >period of "modern" or "large-scale" industry. As I've suggested in my response to Paul C., redistribution would have to take the form of altering ownership shares in given productive assets. This could take one of two forms: worker ownership in something like the sense of Schweickart, or public ownership in something like Roemer's vision of market socialism. Let's take the former case for the sake of illustration: in much the same way that the farmer with 40 acres and a mule might elect not to sell labor power to a capitalist, might workers in an employee-owned enterprise elect not to supply labor to a capitalist-run enterprise? Gil > >John > > >Gil's Post > >In response to this passage from me, > >>D) As noted before, the key systemic basis for surplus value is capital >>scarcity. **Marx puts this point even more strongly in Ch. 33 of Volume I: >>if workers own their own means of production, then the capitalist mode of >>production is impossible (see pages 933 and 940).** This has a number of >>powerful implications, but note just one: the contrapositive of Marx's >>claim is that capitalist exploitation can be eliminated simply through >>sufficient wealth redistribution. [Emphasis added] > >John writes: > >>My comment: Wait a sec. Isn't Marx speaking of the ability of >>capitalism to take root? I think so. Hence, I'm unwilling to quickly >>accept those "powerful implications" concerning the elimination of >>capitalist exploitation. That is, it's unclear to me that *merely* >>redistributing the wealth of a developed capitalist society puts an >>end to capitalist exploitation. As long as the drive to accumulate >>for the sake of survival exists, there's seemingly nothing to prevent >>workers from hiring other workers with their redistributed wealth. > >I'd say the same thing, John, which is why I characterized Marx's version >of capital scarcity as "stronger" than the sense I understand to be >minimally required for the existence of capitalist exploitation. But >you've gone me one better, because I must agree it's at least plausible >that Marx's Ch. 33 conclusions about the role of wealth distribution in >Ch. 33 apply *only* to the conditions required for "capitalism to take >root," as you say. Under this reading, it is certainly hasty at best to >xinfer that mere redistribution would eliminate capitalist exploitation. > >But I think this point demands further exploration. > >1) First, concerning the impact of distribution on exploitation: doesn't >Marx indicate in V. I, Ch. 6, without any caveat, that a *necessary* >condition for capitalists to find labor power for sale is that there exist >a propertyless class? And if so doesn't this indicate that Marx also >thinks the indicated connection between distribution and exploitation holds >even *after* capitalism has taken root? > >2) Next, aside from what Marx says in Ch. 6 or elsewhere, why *wouldn't* >his Ch. 33 assessment of the connection between distribution and >exploitation also apply *after* capitalism has taken root? What's >fundamentally different? > >3) Next, you say "...there's seemingly nothing to prevent workers from >hiring other workers with their redistributed wealth." > >I agree. But suppose those other workers had wealth as well--that is, >let's suppose perfectly equal wealth distribution for the sake of argument. > Under this condition, would you still insist that the existence of capital >or labor markets implied the existence of capitalist exploitation in the >sense Marx intended? If so, why? > >>Gil continues: >> >>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]. >> >> >>My comment: Marx's statement makes my case again. He's talking about >>getting capitalism started and not giving us clues about how the end it. > >Well, he doesn't *quite* make your case. I agree that the explicit context >of his remarks concerns the *onset* of capitalism. But nowhere in the >passage does he insist that this conclusion categorically *doesn't* hold >once capitalism has taken root. > >For myself, I would only note that this is not a definitely settled issue, >and therefore worthy of theoretical discussion. Rakesh wanted to know what >the point of my Ch. 5 critique is, and this is a part of the point. That >is, I'm only trying to say that there is a serious theoretical problem in >need of resolution, not that I've figured out the ultimate resolution. > >Gil >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 31 2001 - 00:00:03 EST