Rakesh asked that the following be forwarded to the list./In solidarity, Jerry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rakesh Bhandari" <rakeshb@stanford.edu> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 5:31 AM Subject: slavery <snip, JL> > Just a few points. > > 1. Jerry and/or Paul has suggested (I believe) that Engels excised > surplus value from his summary of Marx's account of the changes in > the system of corvee labor because Marx meant to imply that only > surplus labor was performed, not that surplus value was in fact > produced. In other words, both Jerry and Paul B claim that Engels > recognized that corvee labor was not a capitalistic form of the > production of surplus value but rather a system for the extraction > of surplus labor alone. > > Yet reading of Marx's vol 1 comment and chapter on merchant capital > in vol 3 will reveal that Marx freely substitutes surplus labor and > surplus value in certain specific contexts (as Preobrazhensky pointed > out long ago): corvee labor entangled in the capitalist world > market, modern plantation slavery and exceptional instances of > ancient slavery, the putting out system under the domination of > merchant capital. > > > At any rate, in this case Engels himself agreed that corvee labor > has become a transitional form of surplus value production. In fact > Engels refers to corvee labor having become a capitalist form of > production. > > "the capitalistic period announced itself in the country districts as > the period of agricultural industry on a large scale, based on the > corvee labor of serfs" > > Engels, Die Mark, 1882 quoted in GA Cohen, KM's Theory of History, p. 187 > > There is thus evidence against Jerry's and Paul B's pure speculation > that Engels disagreed with Marx's clear view that surplus value had > been produced in the system of modern plantation slavery, in the > system of corvee labor at a certain point in its development, in the > putting out system. > > It is also important that neither Jerry nor Paul B has been able to > produce a single quote in which Marx argues that only wage laborers > (as they have defined wage labor) can produce surplus value. > > They can quibble all they like about whether Marx mis-spoke in > referring to the surplus value produced in the system of plantation > slavery, in the putting out system, in corvee labor. > > Jerry can claim that Marx should not have referred to modern > plantations in the American colonies as capitalist enterprises (TSV > II). Jerry and Paul B can say that Marx should not have said again in > the Capital vol 3 chapter on merchant capital that slavery can be > transformed from a patriarchal system into a system for the > production of surplus value (almost the exact language in vol 1) and > that Marx blundered in referring to surplus value produced in the > putting out system. > > But Marx said what he meant, and neither has yet been able to find a > single quote in which Marx explains why it is that only wage labor > (defined in circulationist terms as the exchange of a money wage for > labor power) can produce surplus value. > > Marx says otherwise too many times for this to be a plausible > interpretation of Marx. In short they will not be able to find a > positive elaboration in Marx of their thesis--only wage labor (again > as they have defined it) can produce surplus value > > Jerry has made the claim that Marx could not have been referring to > the surplus value produced through the sytem of corvee labor because > commodities were not produced by these serfs for landlords. But > obviously Marx and Engels thought otherwise; > > they clearly thought that corvee labor had become a transitional form > of *surplus value* and/or capitalistic production. In fact this is > why Marx thought that the surplus labor which the landlords attempted > to extract from the serfs had been increased so horrifically. > > Jerry actually said that this section in vol 1 is about surplus > labor, not surplus value! > > But in fact the section is about how as production for export in the > capitalist world market becomes the principal interest there are such > compulsions for surplus value production that a new voracious and > boundless appetite for surplus labor is created. > > It is clear that this section is not about surplus labor alone but > absolute surplus value as that after is the theme of this part of > Capital. How can this be denied that this is the main point of the > section? > > Marx and Engels could be wrong about entangled in the world market > the lords had become and whether the production of commodities had in > fact become their principal interest--and Perry Anderson does present > evidence that suggests that they may have misread the situation in > terms of corvee labor though in the case of modern plantation > slavery, as Blackburn's monumental history demonstrates. > > > But the point here is that neither Marx nor Engels thought that only > wage labor could produce surplus value. > > There has not yet been produced one piece of evidence that shows that > Marx thought that only wage labor can produce surplus value, though > it is not in dispute that > > a. Marx believed that a developed capitalism depends on free wage labor. > > b. that plantation slavery and corvee labor may have regressed from > surplus value production back to natural economy or patriarchal > economy if they had not been entangled in a world market dominated by > capitalist production on the basis of free wage labor. > > 2. Jerry has claimed that if slaves produced some of their own > subsistence that they could not have produced value. But Marx clearly > makes the crucial point in the TSV II quote which I took the time to > type out, though neither Jerry nor Paul B then parsed it and > responded to it carefully. > > Peasants who have already produced their subsistence can dispose of > the surplus product at prices which are below prices of production > (or cost price as Marx refers to it in TSV); in this sense value does > not regulate their production. However slaves were forced to produce > sufficient commodity output that the plantation owners could receive > at least the average rate of profit on their massive investments in > the plantations. That slaves produced some of their own subsistence > did not free them of the burden of having to labor long and hard > enough to produce a commodity output which would ensure the receipt > of prices of production for plantation capitalists. This is in fact > why plantation owners in this calculating and calculated system held > the time that slaves had to tend directly for their own subsistence > to a carefully regulated minimum. > > > > 3. Nicky has questioned whether modern plantation slaves really > produced commodities. Again Marx himself emphasized that unlike > feudal serfs or colonial settler peasants, modern plantation slaves > produced commodities. > > "In these colonies, and especially in those which produced only > merchandise such as tobacco, cotton, sugar, etc and not the usual > foodstuffs.. right from the start the colonists did not seek > subsistence but set up a business...They did not act like the > Germans, who settled in Germany, in order to make their home their, > but like people, who driven by motives of *bourgeois production*, > wanted to produce *commodities*, and their point of view was, form > the outset, determined not by the product by the sale of the product." > > TSV, vol 2, p. 239 all emphases Marx's. > > Of course Nicky, unlike Jerry and Paul B, does not claim to be > interpreting Marx on this question but of course Marx was correct > that modern plantation slavery was essentially commodity production. > > > 4. Jerry has argued that I make it impossible to differentiate how > the intensification of labor is accomplished in slavery from how it > is accomplished in wage labor capitalism. Does Jerry think that > employers had no rights to corporal punishment in capitalist > factories in the 18th and 19th century?! At any rate, even if > physical coercion is outlawed in modern capitalism, why does this > mean that surplus value cannot be produced by slaves? > > 5. Paul B says that he is not happy with the thesis that US slaves > produced surplus value. I do not see why Paul B has to be happy > about this. Of course Marx's idea was that it was the very unhappy > lot of enslaved Africans to have had to have produced surplus value, > for this is what transformed a patriarchal slave institution into a > vicious consumer of human life. > > 6. Both Jerry and Paul B repeat their point that slaves could not > have produced surplus value because there was no variable capital > invested by modern plantation owners, but do note that they repeat > the point without ever having once commented on my speaking to their > point. In short, they have yet to explain why variable capital--which > is the capital invested in the securing and reproducing of > capitalistically productive labor--*must* take the form of a wage in > exchange for labor power for labor to then produce surplus value in > the abode of production. > > 7. Jerry underlines that Marx never referred to the purchase price of > slaves as variable capital or faux fraix. Yes but he does refer to > the surplus value produced by some slaves. He does refer to modern > plantations as capitalist enterprises. So what is the problem? Does > Jerry think there is any evidence on his side that Marx believed that > no slave could ever produce surplus value? The only piece of evidence > he has suggested is Marx's referring to the amortization of the > purchase price of slaves as akin to the amortization of the money > capital used to purchase a piece of fixed capital. But no where does > Marx say that slaves play the same role in production as a piece of > fixed capital. No Marx says that slaves can and have produced surplus > value! > > > Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:09 EDT