[PEN-L:11744] Re: Re: more on col'ism

[Mathew Forstater]

"[T]he veiled slavery of the wage-workers in Europe needed, for its pedestal, slavery pure and simple in the new world...[C]apital comes (into the world) dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt." (Marx, _Capital_, Volume 1).   "But the accumulation of capital pre-supposes surplus-value; surplus value pre-supposes capitalistic production; capitalistic production pre-supposes the pre-existence of considerable masses of capital and of labour-power in the hands of producers of commodities.  The whole movement, therefore, seems to turn in a vicious circle; we can break out only by supposing a primitive accumulation (previous accumulation of Adam Smith) preceding capitalist accumulation; an accumulation not the result of the capitalist mode of production, but its starting point. (Marx, _Capital_, Volume 1, ch. XXVI).   "The treasures captured outside Europe by undisguised looting, enslavement and murder, floated back to the mother-country and were turned into capital." (Marx, _Capital_, Volume 1).   "However, not commerce alone, but also merchant's capital, is older than the capitalist mode of production....[M]erchant's capital appears as the historical form of capital long before capital established its own domination over production.  Its existence and development to a certain level are in themselves historical premises for the development of capitalist production...The independent and predominant development of capital as merchant's capital is tantamount to the non-subjection of production to capital, and hence to capital developing on the basis of an alien social mode of production...It is in the circulation process that money develops into capital.  It is in circulation that products first develop as exchange-values, as commodities and as money.  Capital can, and must, form in the process of circulation, before it learns to control its extremes--the various spheres of production between which circulation mediates.  So long as merchant's capital promotes the exchange of products between undeveloped societies, commercial profit not only appears as outbargaining and cheating, but also largely originates from them...[T]he great revolutions which took place in commerce with the geographical discoveries and speeded the development of merchant's capital constitute one of the principal elements in furthering the transition from feudal to capitalist mode of production.  The sudden expansion of the world-market, the multiplication of circulating commodities, the competitive zeal of the European nations to posess themselves of the products of Asia and the treasures of America, and the colonial system--all contributed materially toward destroying the feudal fetters on production. (Marx, _Capital_, vol. 3, ch. XX)     mf     -----Original Message----- From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sunday, September 26, 1999 7:16 PM Subject: [PEN-L:11718] Re: Re: Re: more on col'ism Barkley wrote: >>>Capitalism = private ownership of the means of production as the predominant pattern in a society.<<< Doug wrote:>> What about the reinvestment-of-surplus part and the imperative to grow?<< Bill writes: >Don't these two follow from the definition?  Doesn't a battle of each against all force this?< Barkley's definition does not distinguish between simple commodity production and capitalism. The latter is not only private ownership of the means of production, but also the proletarianization of labor (the "double freedom" that Marx wrote about). Without the proletarianization of labor (or directly-forced labor, which does not have to be part of capitalism), surplus-value cannot be produced. A pure system of simple commodity production is nothing but the competition among peers (sort of like Walrasian GE). There's no class that's dependent on the employers for their survival, so there's no production of surplus-value. They peers compete, but each one that gets a surplus-value (M' > M) gets it at the expense of other competers (who suffer from M' < M). If one or a number of them can continue winning for awhile, in theory they could proletarianize the others, creating a capitalist system. But it didn't work that way in practice, in actual history. The folks who were proletarianized were forced into their status. Once people are proletarianized, then there's a basis for accumulation. This implies that competition encourages accumulation. Just because Marx said such things doesn't mean that they're true. But in my humble opinion, this is the best theory of capitalism around, in terms of helping us understand the world, understanding what's wrong with it, and even providing us some guidance for action. For example, Barkley's definition can easily be seen as applying to ancient Rome. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html