Jim wrote:
"As Doug notes, the question of how the surplus-value is utilized is
crucial. Paul Baran also asked this question."
Agreed. Mandel discussed this very specifically in a 1967 paper "Primitive
accumulation and the industrialisation of the third world" (continuing his
analysis from Marxis
In a paper he will give this Monday at the International Institute of Social
History in Amsterdam, LSE Professor Patrick O'Brien argues:
"With the aid of data (rarely cited by Mandel to support his
representations) European economic history has been reconfigured as one of
gradual and continuous ri
It seems to me that there are _three_ forms of surplus-value being discussed.
(1) "standard" Marxian surplus-value, i.e., the excess labor done beyond that needed
to cover the costs of hiring proletarians under the capitalist mode of production.
(2) the surplus-product of exploited direct prod
I'm really afraid of stirring up a hornet's nest, but what was done
with the proceeds of the looting of the proto-colonies? Was it
re-invested productively, or squandered on luxury consumption?
Doug
For PEN-L'ers interested in these sorts of questions, I *highly recommend*
J. Banaji's article "Isla
I'm really afraid of stirring up a hornet's nest, but what was done
with the proceeds of the looting of the proto-colonies? Was it
re-invested productively, or squandered on luxury consumption?
Doug
Forwarded from Gernot Köhler
--
Louis Proyect circulated an interesting quotation from Ernest Mandel,
Marxist Economic Theory, recently (see below). Mandel's expression of
"two
forms of surplus-value" caught my attention. The second form of surplus
value a la Mandel refers to the well-
