Thanks, Jerry, and there is a problem: In the Progress: we have "On the other hand, a fall in the rate of profit again hastens the concentration of capital and its centralisation through expropriation of minor capitalists, the few direct producers who still have anything left to be expropriated", p.241) In the Vintage, we have "On the other hand the fall in the rate of profit again accelerates the concentration of capital, and its centralization, by dispossessing the *smaller capitalists* and expropriating the final residue of direct producers who still have something to expropriate." (p. 349, your typing) These are seemingly NOT the same (relying on exact rendition's above). The former has no "and" between 'capitalists' and 'direct producers', as if the minor capitalists are also direct producing (which is quite possible), while the latter seems to make the distinction. The German from Berlin 1961 has no "und" (p. 269), like the Progress English. Jerry or anyone, any other leads or solutions? Are we dealing with a typo in one or the other or what? Perelman's *The Invention of Capitalism*, p. 31, bottom, considers the passage important (he cites p. 348, not 349, 1981 Vintage) for indicating the on-going character of 'primitive accumulation' (I don't agree, but is another matter, after we get past to the correct text). Paul P.S. Gently falling snow is better and prettier than a hurricane, right, Alejandro? ************************************************************************ Paul Zarembka, editor, RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at ********************* http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka "gerald_a_levy" <gerald_a_levy@msn.com> said, on 01/09/02: >Re Paul Z's [6267]: >> Vol. 3 in the Vintage edition, p. 348, has, I understand, a wording >> "expropriating the final residue of direct producers who still have >> something left to expropriate". Could someone who has that edition >> confirm the wording and tell me the exact antecedent, who is being expropriated? >Page *349* [note difference] in the Vintage/Penguin edition: > "Ricardo, while claiming to be dealing with the rate of profit, actually >deals >only with the rate of surplus-value, and this only on the assumption that >the working day is a constant magnitude, both intensively and extensively. > A fall in the profit rate, and accelerated accumulation, are simply >different >expressions of the same process, in so far as both express the development >of productivity. Accumulation in turn accelerates the fall in the profit >rate, >and in so far as it involves the concentration of workers on a large scale >and >hence a higher composition of capital. On the other hand the fall in the >rate >of profit again accelerates the concentration of capital, and its >centralization, >by dispossessing the *smaller capitalists* and expropriating the final >residue >of direct producers who still have something to expropriate. In this way >there >is an acceleration of accumulation as far as its mass is concerned, even >though >the rate of this accumulation falls together with the rate of profit" >(emphasis >added, JL; 2nd & 3rd paragraphs, Ch. 15) >In context, the 'direct producers' above seem *not* to refer to the >wage-earning (working) class but to 'smaller capitalists' broadly >understood to >include all those who do not own and control the means of production >(including e.g. peasant farmers). >Hope that helps. >I hope your snow has melted! >In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST