[ show plain text ]
Paul Z:
Sorry, Paul, my fault for not seeing your point. I see what you were
getting at now, and I am not sure we disagree. I was using "capital"
in the sense simply of M-M', the growth of monetary value. Of
course, "capital" in the sense of wage labor involves more than just
M-M', although it does take that form too -- wage labor being one way
to get M' bigger than M (the only way if we take a system of
generalized commodity production as a whole).
Cheers, Paul B.
> Received: from SpoolDir by SCIFAC (Mercury 1.48); 28 Sep 00
18:47:35 gmt-5 > Return-path: <owner-ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
> Received: from galaxy.csuchico.edu (132.241.82.21) by scifac.indstate.edu (Mercury 1.48) with ESMTP;
> 28 Sep 00 18:47:29 gmt-5
> Received: from localhost (server@localhost [127.0.0.1])
> by galaxy.csuchico.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA23252;
> Thu, 28 Sep 2000 16:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
> Received: from hercules.acsu.buffalo.edu (qmailr@hercules.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.7.123])
> by galaxy.csuchico.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA23227
> for <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 16:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-Id: <200009282341.QAA23227@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
> Received: (qmail 20273 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2000 23:41:23 -0000
> Received: from ubppp234-10.dialin.buffalo.edu (HELO smtp.buffalo.edu) (128.205.234.10)
> by hercules.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Sep 2000 23:41:23 -0000
> From: Paul Zarembka <zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu>
> Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 19:32:46
> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> In-Reply-To: <9CAD88E418D@scifac.indstate.edu>
> Subject: [OPE-L:3898] Re: Re: Re: Fred/Ajit discussion
> X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v2.10a c10
> Reply-To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> Sender: owner-ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.08 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
> X-PMFLAGS: 33554560
>
> Paul B.
>
> I think I need to reproduce what you initially wrote [3881] which led to
> my question:
>
> PB>money, as both means of circulation and as capital, is historically
> PB>prior to wage labor as the dominant form of production.
>
> I asked about the connection of this statement of yours to capitalism and
> you answer below.
>
> Let me now ask another way: You refer to "money, as ... capital". Yet,
> money is not simply "capital" or you wouldn't have needed to bother
> writing, correct? So how is "capital" distinct from money? Is "capital"
> not the appropriation of surplus value from wage labor? (I guess you will
> disagree.)
>
> If so, then "money...as capital" is not "prior to wage labor".
>
> Paul Z.
>
> ***********************************************************************
> Paul Zarembka, editor, RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at
> ******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
>
>
> "ECUSERS" <ECBURKE@scifac.indstate.edu> said, on 09/28/00:
>
> >> Paul B.
> >>
> >> Does this mean that you agree with Engels that simple commodity production
> >> is both logically and historically prior to generalized commodity
> >> production? Does it also mean that, for you, capitalism can exist without
> >> wage labor?
> >>
> >> Paul Z.
> >>
>
> >Well, on the first question, if by simple commodity production is meant
> >the production of commodities in enterprises not using wage labor, it is
> >obviously historically prior. If you mean SCP as a dominant form of
> >production, I don't think that has ever happened. I am not sure what
> >logically prior means though in this context. On the second question,
> >my answer is no. But I don't see how the statement would follow from
> >mine. Obviously capital in the sense of M-M' existed prior to
> >capitalism (e.g., in moneylending).
>
> >Not sure what you're getting at, but I am interested in finding out.
> >
> >Comradely, Paul Burkett.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 00:00:05 EDT