[ show plain text ]
Fred and Gil,
In regard to Fred's question, note Marx:
"in order to examine the object of our investigation in its integrity,
free from all disturbing subsidiary circumstances, we must treat the whole
world as one nation, and assume that capitalist production is everywhere
established and has possessed itself of every branch of industry" (Vol. 1,
p.545, fn.1).
Luxemburg (1913, p.331-33) points to similar citations in other parts of
Marx's works to remove any doubts concerning what Marx meant. Capitalism
is assumed to have completely occupied the space of theoretical
discussion.
Paul
***********************************************************************
Paul Zarembka, supporting RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY
******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
"Fred B. Moseley" <fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu> said, on 05/12/00 at 08:29 AM:
>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"?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EDT