[ show plain text ]
Paul B.
I think I need to reproduce what you initially wrote [3881] which led to
my question:
PB>money, as both means of circulation and as capital, is historically
PB>prior to wage labor as the dominant form of production.
I asked about the connection of this statement of yours to capitalism and
you answer below.
Let me now ask another way: You refer to "money, as ... capital". Yet,
money is not simply "capital" or you wouldn't have needed to bother
writing, correct? So how is "capital" distinct from money? Is "capital"
not the appropriation of surplus value from wage labor? (I guess you will
disagree.)
If so, then "money...as capital" is not "prior to wage labor".
Paul Z.
***********************************************************************
Paul Zarembka, editor, RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at
******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
"ECUSERS" <ECBURKE@scifac.indstate.edu> said, on 09/28/00:
>> Paul B.
>>
>> Does this mean that you agree with Engels that simple commodity production
>> is both logically and historically prior to generalized commodity
>> production? Does it also mean that, for you, capitalism can exist without
>> wage labor?
>>
>> Paul Z.
>>
>Well, on the first question, if by simple commodity production is meant
>the production of commodities in enterprises not using wage labor, it is
>obviously historically prior. If you mean SCP as a dominant form of
>production, I don't think that has ever happened. I am not sure what
>logically prior means though in this context. On the second question,
>my answer is no. But I don't see how the statement would follow from
>mine. Obviously capital in the sense of M-M' existed prior to
>capitalism (e.g., in moneylending).
>Not sure what you're getting at, but I am interested in finding out.
>
>Comradely, Paul Burkett.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 00:00:05 EDT