From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Wed Jan 09 2008 - 08:38:34 EST
--On 1/9/2008 10:30 AM +0100 Dave Zachariah wrote:
> I agree with Paul Z that the concept of "accumulation of capital" is
> ambiguous. However, it is not 'accumulation' that is hard to conceptualize
> but 'capital'. In the most general use 'capital' is a sum of money that is
> employed to obtain more money.
Marx's four volume work is called "Capital". Is it about a sum of money?
I don't think so. It is about the social relationship of capitalists to
wage-laborers.
I would argue that Dave's comment is an example of classical/neoclassical
conception penetrating marxist political economy (Marx himself had certain
ambiguous formulations -- but they were not a dominant tendency in his
work).
Of course my argument cannot be reduced in a few emails, but consider the
first couple of pages in the chapter "General Law of Capitalist
Accumulation". It summarizes the prior chapter "Conversion of Surplus
Value into Capital".
Paul Z.
************************************************************************
(Vol.23) THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001 -- U.S. softcover forthcoming
video summary from Snowshoe Films at http://snowshoefilms.com
(Vol.24) TRANSITIONS IN LATIN AMERICA AND IN POLAND AND SYRIA
********************* http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 00:00:06 EST