From: Francisco Paulo Cipolla (cipolla@UFPR.BR)
Date: Mon Dec 11 2006 - 15:32:50 EST
Francisco Paulo Cipolla wrote: > Dogan, is the citation right? > Why does Marx say "but gives him individual property" instead of > collective property? Co-operation or possession in common seem to be > the opposite of individual property! > Paulo > > Dogan Goecmen wrote: > >> Dear David in Capital, Vol. 1, Part VIII: Primitive Accumulation, >> Chapter Thirty-Two: Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation, >> in the paragraph before the last paragraph Marx says: *The >> capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode >> of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the >> first negation of individual private property, as founded on the >> labor of the proprietor. But capitalist production begets, with the >> inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It is the >> negation of negation. This does not re-establish private property >> for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the >> acquisition of the capitalist era: i.e., on co-operation and the >> possession in common of the land and of the means of >> production.*See: >> http://www.marx.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm;alternatively: >> Karl Marx, Capital, Moscow: Progress Publishers, Vol. I, p. 715.If >> more references needed please let us know. There are many similar >> passages in various other works of Marx and Engels. Since you put in >> your email Marx on the first place I selected a passage from >> Capital. CheersDogan In einer eMail vom 08.12.2006 22:40:26 >> Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt dlaibman@SCIENCEANDSOCIETY.COM: >> >> Dear OPE comrades, >> Folks on this list are *so good* at tracking things >> down, that I could >> not resist passing this one along. >> One of my colleagues at *Science & Society,* Barbara >> Foley, asks: where >> does Marx (I think she would include Engels as well) put >> forward the >> idea that history proceeds in spiral form -- i.e., >> negation of the >> negation, with elements present in the first-posited stage >> returning, in >> a "higher" state, in a third stage? >> Any references would be appreciated. >> In solidarity, >> David >> David Laibman >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 00:00:04 EST