> To Rakesh and Andrew
>
> I agree with Andrew, the differential ownership does not explain the capitalist
> relation of "exploitation". Usury, Landlords, etc. enjoyed the surplus value
> on account of the differential ownership even before the capitalism ruled.
But this depends what you mean by "explain". Differential ownership
of relatively scarce productive assets does *account for* capitalist
exploitation given the existence of the necessary circuits of
capital. Marx corroborates this by labelling usury and merchant's
capital extended to small producers "capitalist exploitation without
the capitalist mode of production."
In solidarity, Gil