This will be my last message on the topic; and as I have other responsibilities and will be away from computer, I am requesting that I be temporarily unsubbed from this list. Thanks to the moderator. Re Jerry's 6982 >Re Rakesh's [6980]: > > > Marx after all does not say that the slave himself has the same role > > in production as any other piece of fixed capital. In fact Marx says >> many times in other places that modern slaves did produce surplus > > value, not just a surplus product. > >He says that "many times in other places", does he? the quotes were put together long ago by Grossmann and Jairus in his Modes of Production piece for Capital and Class. The long passage from TSV II which I quoted was already highlighted by Grossman. There are references in Capital 3 as well; moreover, as Jairus argues, surplus value can be produced by those who appear to be peasants. > >> Why did Marx refer to the money invested in the purchase of slaves as >> CAPITAL at all if he did not think modern plantation slavery was a >> form of the capitalistic production of surplus value? > >Interesting question since, in the passage from V2, while he ends the >passage referring to the South in the USA, most of the passage (which >_begins_ with: "In the slave system, the money capital laid out on the >purchase of labour-power plays the role of fixed capital in money >form, ....", p. 554) concerns the *ancient* slave system in Athens, the >Greek states, Rome, etc. Well first you are evading my refutation of your point. In fact no where in your reply here do you even quote my several comments on this passage and respond to them. Marx says that the money capital paid for slaves is amortized as money capital laid out for fixed capital--bit by bit. This passage does not say that slaves play the same role in production as a piece of fixed capital. The passage simply does not support your argument that slaves can never produce surplus value. Moreover that Marx refers to the money laid out for slaves as money capital indicates that he thinks we are dealing with some kind of capital. Second, Marx does in fact recognize that in what he thinks are exceptional cases in antiquity the aim of production was to obtain exchange value (and value and surplus value) in its independent monetary shape, i.e, in the production of gold and silver. Third, I do not see why in ancient Athens money investments made for the purchase of slaves could not have been amortized bit by bit. Do you not think they should have been capable of such calculations. Marx is saying that they made such calculations; he is not saying that slaves like a piece of machinery cannot produce value and surplus value. But Marx does support my thesis not only in vol 1 but vol 3 as well. Fourth, Marx does not say that production aimed primarily at surplus value is unique to modern capitalism. And even if Marx did think that he is wrong. I think it is wrong to hang the historical specificity of capitalism on the complete absence of value, value production, surplus value production in any non capitalist mode. This is primitivist historiography. Marx thinks that the organization of social production *in general* around the *boundless* appetite for surplus value and thus surplus labor is what characterizes capitalism. Which in turn allows for the emergence of noveleties: the real subsumption of labor and specific laws of motion > >> Which is exactly what Marx says directly elsewhere. I feel confident >> that you know the quote in vol I to which I am referring. The >> surprising thing is that you do not feel compelled to speak about it. > >I don't feel "compelled" to speak about it. It's not all that significant >a passage, imo, when placed in context. It is an interesting quotation, >though, for reasons I describe below. The context is simple. That when these older forms (slave labor, corvee labor) are brought into the world market dominated by the capitalist mode of production, they become methods for the production of surplus value as production is no longer directed at the satisfaction of immediate local requirements. And this changes the character of slavery and corvee labor. Marx is speaking quite accurately here about the production of surplus value having become the aim of production. What we have here is the nature of surplus value production--the boundless appetite for surplus labor. > >What is most remarkable, though, is how little there is in Volume 1 that >you can hang your hat on. In approx. 15 pages (21 if we count "Results") >where there are references to slavery there is only the 1 -- as we shall >see, ambiguous -- passage that says what you want it to say. The passage >in question is from Ch. 10, Section 2 and is at the end of the first >paragraph. Of course there is little to hang one's hat on. It's a theory of pure capitalism, not an empirical account of early capitalism. > >The Penguin edition ends the paragraph with: "It is no longer a question of >obtaining from him a certain quantity of useful products, but rather the >production of surplus-value itself. The same is true of the corvee, in the >Danubian Principalities for instance" (345). > >Interestingly, the Moore and Aveling translation Is: "it is now a question >of production of surplus-labour itself" (Kerr ed., p. 260). When I >looked-up the original passage in German (1981 Ullstein Buch Nr. 35091), >the Fowkes translation would seem to be more accurate since it reads >"Mehrwerts" rather than "Merharbeit" (201). Perhaps Moore & Aveling >were trying to translate what they thought Marx meant rather than a >literal translation? This is poor practice indeed for translators, but it >is easy to understand why they might have thought that was what he >meant. I am glad that you have indicated here that you would not have mis-translated the text given what you think Marx should have said. And you'll note that Marx refers to the surplus value produced by slaves in other places as well. > >Let us recall that the subject of both the sub-section and the paragraph is >surplus labor rather than surplus value. Let us also recall his statement, >when comparing the developed plantation system in the South, that he >wrote that "the same is true of the corvee". The way I understand the >sentence *in context* is that production developed from the production >of "useful products" alone to the production of commodities (here >understood to mean, presumably in this context, products which are >produced in order to be sold and thereby have both a use-value and an >exchange-value) where the slaves performed surplus-labor-time. The point is that when slavery or corvee are embedded in the world capitalist market, there emerges a new boundless thirst for surplus labor because it is value itself that becomes the aim of production rather than the satisfication of immediate needs. Moreover, howevever true this was of the corvee system, it was more true of modern plantation slaves. Marx says what he means to say here. > >Let us then consider the corvee system in which "the same is true". To >begin with, the ruling class in the corvee system were landlords. There >were other similarities to feudalism, e.g. there were rents in kind. The >corvee is described not as "surplus-value itself" the next page (Penguin, p. >346) but as "tribute". read on Marx uses value categories explicitly. refers to the rate of surplus value, I believe. p. 348, I believe--did you miss it? > My reading of the surplus-labor-time performed >(see p. 347) was that it was not primarily engaged in commodity production. >And, unlike cotton, these products I don't believe were sold on world >markets. good. after all I am more interested in proving that slave plantations were capitalist enterprises than the corvee system was value production. > Clearly, there wasn't abstract labor but the expenditure of labor >time on concrete activities specified by the code. How do you define abstract labor? And I don't get this at all. All abstract labor is spent on concrete activities. Abstract and concrete are two aspects of value positing labor, not two different kinds of labor. Again for my purposes the labor that produced cotton as a commodity for the world market. had its abstract aspect. It was abstract in Postone's specific sense for example. > In context, thus, the >only way that this passage could *mean* surplus-value is for us to accept >the proposition -- which I think Marx rejects elsewhere (but, as I suggested >previously, there is some inconsistency on his part) -- is to interpret the >meaning as "surplus-labor itself" -- which is, after all, the subject >(rather than surplus value) of this sub-section. I don't follow this argument; nor do you explain why Marx refers to the rate of surplus value for corvee labor on p. 348 > >It is true that elsewhere, in the drafts for what became Volume 3, that >Marx seems to widen his comprehension of the conditions under which >surplus-value is created and who thereby produces surplus value. "Seems"? He was quite clear. > You >might recall that Gil picked-up on many of those passages. Now you, >ironically, are following in Gil's footsteps. Oh guilt by association. I must say that I wonder at your evasions and your debating tactics, Jerry. I have written a clear response to Gil's chapter 5 critique. > Yet, in context, I think this >refers not to the production of surplus-value but to the (re) *distribution* >of surplus value among capitalists and other classes (e.g. landlords). Marx does *not* think the production of surplus value or the aim of production as the production of value is unique to a fully developed capitalism. Nor does Marx say that *only* those who have exchanged labor power for a wage in the realm of circulation can produce value. Rakesh >This, I think, is why Marx did not discuss the question further in Volume >1 in terms of whether or not modern slaves produce surplus value (even >though he discussed slavery, including plantation slavery, itself in many >other places in VI): i.e. it is a topic which can only be fully understood >later at a less abstract level of abstraction where there is an examination >of the re-distribution of surplus value internationally and where the world >market is grasped. Right so we are back to your theses that slaveowners were able to redistribute value produced elsewhere to themselves and that slaves themselves produced no value. Of course I disagree. And I will leave it to others to read through the posts and judge our arguments. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:09 EDT