[ show plain text ]
This is a question of clarification regarding Gil's (3079). Thanks, Gil.
I am afraid that Gil's first sentence may gloss over a crucial
disagreement between us, that I would like to clarify. I have argued
that Marx's commodity in Chapter 1 is a product of CAPITALIST
PRODUCTION. Gil responded that he agrees that Marx's commodity in Chapter
1 is a product of the CAPITALIST MODE OF PRODUCTION.
> I am certainly prepared to agree that Marx's starting point in Volume 1
> is the commodity understood as a product of the "capitalist mode of
> production," as per the first sentence in the 1st chapter.
Now, one might think that there is no difference between "capitalist
production" and the "capitalist mode of production." However, in previous
OPEL discussions, Gil has given an unusual definition of the "capitalist
mode of production," that includes NON-CAPITALIST forms of production
(e.g. worker coops and the putting-out system). And Gil has argued that
this broader definition is what Marx meant in the many passages throughout
his manuscripts when he talks about the "capitalist mode of production."
Gil, do continue to argue that this broader definition is what Marx meant
by the "capitalist mode of production" throughout his manuscripts,
especially when he says that his starting point in Chapter 1 is the
"capitalist mode of production"? If so, then your first sentence is
misleading, and I would like to review once again your textual evidence
for this interpretation.
Or, do you now agree that Marx's definition of the "capitalist mode of
production" does not include these non-capitalist forms of production?
In this case, my previous argument holds: your interpretation of Marx's
"failure" in Chapter 5 cannot be correct. Since Marx was assuming
capitalist production from the beginning, Marx could not have been
attempting to derive capitalist production as the only possible way to
produce surplus-value. And since Marx was not trying to prove that
capitalist production is the only possible way to produce surplus-value,
Marx could not have failed in such an attempt.
Rather, Marx was trying to explain how surplus-value is produced WITHIN
CAPITALISM (Marx's assumption from the beginning).
The fact that Marx assumed capitalist production from the beginning does
not make Marx's argument in Chapter 5 "irrelevant", as Gil argues. I will
return to this point in a subsequent post. Gil misunderstands what
Chapter 5 is about. But first I would like to clarify just how Gil
interprets Marx's definition of the "capitalist mode of production,"
as the starting-point of his theory.
Thanks in advance for your clarification. I look forward to further
discussion.
Comradely,
Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EDT