----- Original Message ----- From: "paul bullock" <paulbullock@ebms-ltd.co.uk> To: <0pe-l@galaxy.csuchico.ed> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 10:25 PM Subject: Fw: slavery > Rakesh, > > Thanks for your response. As you request, I return this to the OPE-L list, > I guess Jerry will too, which will separate our responses. > > There is a difference in my responses to this question compared to Jerry's. > You bracket us rather tightly here, which given my own disagreements with > Jerry on the issue of surpIus value and State production... and this > exchange itself isn't fair on either of us. What I have simply been trying > to settle for myself is the issue of surplus value and modern slavery... > (and being 'happy' with a result or not relates to my mind nothing > else!.).. > > I take you point perfectly well about wage labour and surplus value. In fact > as you saw I pressed Jerry on modern prison labour, where in my view surplus > value is extracted where work is done on commodity products, wage or no > wage, accounting profit or not for the prison itself (though money is > received). In the same way I was encouraging the inference from another > direction that capitalistically induced plantations extracted SV ... > Jerry objected to this approach, blocking the inference. I did not reply. > > I then put a list of points to Jerry. The key point was whether if the > commodity was produced, and Jerry agreed it is a commodity, which had > value...( and here in response he qualified the question of whether value > was produced ) would it contain surplus value? Why I hesitated at this > point and simply didn't agree with you I'm not sure (pedantism I guess). > > > In this discussion, Jerry's earlier statement that Engels used the category > of sv over a wider historical period (I asked him for quotes... which he > hadn't found) ran counter to his objection to the idea that SV could be > extorted from the US slaves.. this might put Engels on 'your' side. He was > apparently separating Marx and Engels+ Diamat etc.... then he came up with > the Engels editing of the Vol 3 quote... which seemed to contradict his > earlier idea and so reunite Engles and Marx.... in his interpretation. > > Thinking this over, I conclude , that where surplus labour is extracted in a > system dominated by capitalism and where this S Labour time performed is > producing commodities for sale to capitalist manufacturers..as in this > case... there can be no question that surplus value is being produced, > whatever the immediate local circumstances. Why I hesitated at the beginning > is not clear to me .... pedantry probably. > > thanks for your patience > > Paul B. > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rakesh Bhandari" <rakeshb@stanford.edu> > To: <gerald_a_levy@msn.com> > Cc: <paulbullock@ebms-ltd.co.uk> > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 10:31 AM > Subject: slavery > > > > Hi Jerry and Paul B, > > I have some time just to write this reply. If either of you would be > > kind enough to forward it to the list and respond to it, that would > > be great. I shall try to respond next weekend. > > Rakesh > > > > > > 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 - 00:00:10 EDT