Lakshmi Rhone piles one strawman on top of another:
> consumption is important to the capitalist class. Heinrich is describing what the *aim* of production is in the capitalist mode of production, namely the accumulation of capital. If the consumption of the capitalist was the end goal of production, why even bother with the mediating social forms of commodity, money, and capital? Slavery or feudalism are far more direct methods of expropriation. > Heinrich is clearly wrong that capitalism can only develop on the basis of formally free wage labor. Heinrich says nothing at all about capitalism "developing" on the basis of formally free wage labor. His argument is not a historicist one, and he argues against the Kautsky/Engels orthodoxy of seeing Capital as a work of history. It is an analysis of the capitalist mode of production, "at its ideal average", AS MARX STATES VERY CLEARLY IN HIS OWN PREFACE TO CAPITAL. Honest criticism is fine, but you're either engaging in dishonest misrepresentations, or you have severe reading comprehension problems. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
