From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Thu Jan 10 2008 - 11:01:23 EST
I am not wanting to dismiss your research Paul Z,
I think the issues are important, and in the end the meaning of the words used by an author depends on how that author deploys them.
Provided that they do so consistently others can understand what they mean. I would not have used the same terminology as you, because I find that separating the concepts of accumulation from extended reproduction of capitalist social relations is helpful in thinking through the processes leading to a declining rate of profit. If that is not ones focus, you may well find a different terminology to be more useful.
Paul Cockshott
Dept of Computing Science
University of Glasgow
+44 141 330 3125
www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/
-----Original Message-----
From: OPE-L on behalf of Paul Zarembka
Sent: Thu 10/01/2008 1:41 PM
To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] glossary for V1 of _Capital
Dave,
Dave,
I haven't yet been able to forward to you the main 2000 article and I now I
realize, after Jerry's comment, that we are dealing with this issue
piecemeal and we are missing the substance of my work. Paul C. is focusing
on physical means of production as accumulation; he was quite clear about
that (use of labor values notwithstanding). I don't. That is my objection
to his sentence.
Paul C.,
Same for your comment: "I have always seen what Paul Z as focussing on as
'extended reproduction of capitalist social relations' not accumulation."
You have figured out what I'm doing in a dismissable form.
Folks are picking up an objection, conditioned by their own prior use of
'accumulation of capital' filed in their head, and avoiding the deeper
problems I am raising.
As I said, I'm working on a book on accumulation of capital. The reason
why it is taking so long to complete is because it is a hard nut to crack
effectively given how 'accumulation of capital' is loosely used in many
different ways within marxism.
Paul Z.
--On 1/10/2008 9:33 AM +0100 Dave Zachariah wrote:
> Paul Z wrote:
>
>> In contrast, in my
>> three-page entry I argue that a focus upon "an increase in the amount of
>> physical means of production within an economy or its firms ... is the
>> usage in neoclassical or mainstream economics".
>
> But this is not any substantive criticism of what Paul C was saying. The
> growth of the means of production in terms of labour-value can hardly be
> said to be mainstream economics.
>
> (Even if it were, merely labeling it as such is not a valid objection to
> its usage.)
>
> //Dave Z
>
>
************************************************************************
(Vol.23) THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001 -- U.S. softcover forthcoming
video summary at http://snowshoefilms.com
(Vol.24) TRANSITIONS IN LATIN AMERICA AND IN POLAND AND SYRIA
********************* http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 31 2008 - 00:00:06 EST