On Sun, 14 Apr 1996 glevy@acnet.pratt.edu wrote:
> 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).
Jerry, I'm still on the issue of definition. The paragraphs following the
opening of Ch. 24 need to be recognized as providing the definition but I
wasn't suggesting that everything else in the chapter is part of the
definitional question.
> In your definition, in response to Duncan, where did you stop? >
Huh? I don't understand your question.
> 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).
These factors are not definitional issues.
> 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"
I responded to Chai-on on this one.
Paul Z.