Paul Z wrote in [OPE-L:1763]:
> Anyway, Jerry, you cannot stop with the sentence you quote for in the
> very next paragraph begins a long discussion explicating that s goes into
> labor power and more means of production, and that in turn is the
> definition I have offered (in response to Duncan).
I wrote a long explicating post (over 10K) a few days ago which continued
the discussion forward through the remainder of Ch. 24 (and also hinted
at some issues not addressed in Ch. 24).
In your definition, in response to Duncan, where did you stop?
What factors *including the division of surplus value into capital and
revenue*, determine the extent of accumulation? The separation of s into
capital and revenue is discussed in Section 3 (the section that includes
the *assumption* of capitalists as "personified capital"). Other factors
are discussed in Section 4 (beginning on p. 747, Penguin ed).
As for the primitive [original] accumulation of capital that Chai-on
raises, I consider that subject to be related to the pre-history of
capitalism or, if you prefer, the process of the historical becoming of
capitalism as a mode of production. This issue does not come up in Ch. 24
because of the assumption that "we must treat the whole world of trade
as one nation, and assume that capitalist production is established
everywhere and has taken possession of every branch of industry"
(Penguin ed., p. 727).
In OPE-L Solidarity,
Jerry