[ show plain text ]
Paul Z. writes:
>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).
Note that this passage doesn't quite say what you want it to, Paul. It
doesn't say that all production is capitalist production; it says rather
that capitalism is established in every nation and is in every branch of
industry. That would be true if putting-out and family firms operated in
branch along side them.
>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.
I don't know what specific citations Luxemburg refers to, but if they're
like the above they don't establish the point sought by you and Fred.
Also, I wonder what Luxemburg would do with the passage from V. III I cite
in my response to Fred?
In any case, none of this matters for the relevance of my Ch. 5 critique. Gil
>
>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