On Fri, 12 Apr 1996 glevy@acnet.pratt.edu wrote:
> In [OPE-L:1664], dated 4/1, I believe I gave an initial answer to the
> question *you* posed (I will forward a copy to you). In [OPE-L: 1732],
> dated 4/10, I explicitly stated that I was moving *beyond* your question
> to address other questions that arise within the context of Ch. 24.
In [OPE-L: 1664], you quote the following from Volume 1:
"The employment of surplus-value as capital, or its reconversion into
capital, is called accumulation of capital" (Volume 1, Penguin ed., p. 725).
You don't actually say that that is your definition and I guess from
rest of that posting in didn't come (at least to me). Anyway, if by
"capital" you mean or you interpret Marx to mean that it is fundamentally
the social relation between capital and wage labor, then the above quote
is nothing other than using s for more labor hours working more means of
productions (the definition I offered in response to a question from
Duncan). Do I interpret you correctly that you agree with such a definition?
> You are most concerned, it seems, with the definition of the accumulation
> of capital. I am more concerned with explaining the process of
> accumulation and addressing questions that stem from that subject.
In my view, it is correct to be "more concerned with explaining" (that is
what theory is), but we must first know the meaning of the concepts being
used. So, I am NOT "most concerned" with the definition, but am very
concerned that we understand what is meant by "accumulation of capital".
Paul Z.