Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Rob Schaap wrote:
>
> >I mean, what's C without M?
>
> Nothing, right? It's not a C unless it's produced and exchanged for M.
I was just speculating that you can't run a system based on generalised
commodity production without a conveniently portable universal measure a
Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Rob Schaap wrote:
>
> >I mean, what's C without M?
>
> Nothing, right? It's not a C unless it's produced and exchanged for M.
>
This may be one of those quibbles that flips bystanders out -- but isn't
a product still a commodity even though it is resting unsold in an
>Rob Schaap wrote:
>
>>I mean, what's C without M?
Doug writes:
>Nothing, right? It's not a C unless it's produced and exchanged for M.
In theory at least, it would be possible to run a capitalist economy using
barter. However, transactions costs would be very steep, while finance
would be qu
Rob Schaap wrote:
>I mean, what's C without M?
Nothing, right? It's not a C unless it's produced and exchanged for M.
Doug
>"On the other hand, it may be said that there are highly developed but
>historically less mature forms of society in which the highest economic forms
>are to be found, such as cooperation, advanced division of labour etc, and
yet
>there is no money in existence, eg. Peru"
>
>Doesn't sound like pr
>>(1) the oppression of Peru involved markets and merchant capital,
>>within the context of the Spanish Empire. -- Both Blaut & Brenner>>would agree.
>I just talked to Jim's ghost who is standing above my left shoulder >and he
disagrees with you.
>>(2) the oppression of Peru involved pr
>Jim Devine:
> >To say that each case must be examined only in its own terms (is this what
> >you're really saying?) is totally anti-theoretic, leaning heavily toward
> >stereotypes of post-modernism, full of sound and rhetorical fury but
> >signifying nothing.
Louis Proyect:
>No, rather I am sa
>How do you know I'm smirking when I write these posts. Amazing powers you
>have all the way over there in the Big Apple.
I don't know you if you are smirking or not, but I am glad that you don't
deny you are writing provocations.
>I have read Zeitlin, what
>charges do I have to defend him agai
On Tue, 29 May 2001, Louis Proyect wrote:
> >Am. Or at least explain to us how Frank's understanding of Lat. Am. is
> >superior to Petras's or Zeitlin's.
> >
> >Steve
>
> I have read Petras extensively. I consider him useful but ultraleft,
> especially on Nicaragua. However, he has not written
Mark Jones wrote:
>Are you also saying, that revolutions only happen when left intellectuals
>form vanguards?
Nope.
Doug
>Am. Or at least explain to us how Frank's understanding of Lat. Am. is
>superior to Petras's or Zeitlin's.
>
>Steve
I have read Petras extensively. I consider him useful but ultraleft,
especially on Nicaragua. However, he has not written that much about the
16th to 18th century which is of part
On Tue, 29 May 2001, Louis Proyect wrote:
> Jim Devine:
> >To say that each case must be examined only in its own terms (is this what
> >you're really saying?) is totally anti-theoretic, leaning heavily toward
> >stereotypes of post-modernism, full of sound and rhetorical fury but
> >signifying n
>What I meant was that we must understand that our understanding is
>imperfect and that we cannot speak as if we could command absolute truths.
>
>Michael Perelman
Who is talking about absolute truths? I am simply preparing to describe
extensive capitalist growth based on free wage labor in 18th
What I meant was that we must understand that our understanding is
imperfect and that we cannot speak as if we could command absolute truths.
On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 01:17:17PM -0400, Louis Proyect wrote:
> >Given this complexity, it is dangerous to pretend that one can command
> >adequate inform
Doug Henwood wrote:
> such revolutions aren't likely to happen in the rich imperial
> nations if their left intellectuals are interested only in affairs
> thousands of miles from where they sit.
Are you saying that Louis Proyect is not interested in America?
Mark
>And such revolutions aren't likely to happen in the rich imperial
>nations if their left intellectuals are interested only in affairs
>thousands of miles from where they sit.
>
>Doug
You forgot to mention that I live on the Upper East Side. Slipping in your
old age?
Louis Proyect
Marxism mail
Jim Devine:
>To say that each case must be examined only in its own terms (is this what
>you're really saying?) is totally anti-theoretic, leaning heavily toward
>stereotypes of post-modernism, full of sound and rhetorical fury but
>signifying nothing.
No, rather I am saying that Marxists shou
marxism
Chronological --> Find <-- Thread -->
Re: Musings of a Brennerite
From: Louis Proyect
Subject: Re: Musings of a Brennerite
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 12:04:49 -0800
--
>Jim Devine:
> >I'm not the one who invented the term [semi-proletarian]. So you'll have
> to explain why it
> >makes no sense. To me, it expresses the fact that the pure cases of theory
> >(proletarian, non-proletarian) often don't exist in pure form in empirical
> >and historical reality. We o
Wow, Radical History Review allowed a Pinochet supporter be their
webmaster?!
http://chnm.gmu.edu/rhr/rhr.htm
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:YgZV_fFFqcE:chnm.gmu.edu/rhr/rhr.htm+An
dy+Daitsman+&hl=en
http://www.google.com/search?q=Andy+Daitsman+&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&start=10&sa
=N
Jeesh...
M
>Jim, I don't think this truism needs to be repeated in _this_ context,
>because what is at issue is not whether Marx was right or wrong in this
>or that particular, or even in this or that major corollary of his
>thought. The perspective Lou is arguing does not modify or correct Marx,
>it simply
I'm afraid I never made the connection between Brenner and Warren. Must be
something like the connection between Zeitlin and Pinochet...or Raymond
Lau and some dogmatic trotskyist sloganeer...
The arguments that Ahmad makes about the need to take seriously the study
of specific class relations in
>And ain't it funny, when pomo's make the same exact kind of argument about
>Marx and Engels you have a Dick Cheney, but when the "post-colonialists'
>'world systems' folks make the argument that Marx was 'eurocentric,
>teleological', etc. hey you just grab it and run with it. Ahmad's section
>on
Lou, why not give us the whole text instead of the parts that are
ironical. You know this section hardly does justice to the argument
Linebaugh is making in support of Marx and Engels...
And ain't it funny, when pomo's make the same exact kind of argument about
Marx and Engels you have a Dick Che
On Mon, 28 May 2001, Louis Proyect wrote:
> >Alas, Louis admits that Carrol and Jim are correct.
> >
> >Steve
>
> Of course they are correct. How can anybody deny that ancient Babylonian
> society and day labor, the fastest growing job category in the USA by some
> accounts, both fall under the r
>Alas, Louis admits that Carrol and Jim are correct.
>
>Steve
Of course they are correct. How can anybody deny that ancient Babylonian
society and day labor, the fastest growing job category in the USA by some
accounts, both fall under the rubric of mercantile capitalism. In fact the
first job I
On Mon, 28 May 2001, Louis Proyect wrote:
> Mercantilism = Code of Hammurabi = Kelly Girls?
Why not? For you Brenner=Kautsky
Graduate students of Ellen Wood=Fool
Raymond Lau=Trotskyist Sect leafleter
Zeitlin=Pinochet
Steve
> >Another commercial feature reflected in Hammurapi's code was the use of
> >silver as _both_ a means of payment _and_ a measure of value. In early
> >cultures the two most often varied: e.g., use silver or copper for means
> >of payment but cattle for measure of value. By Jim Blaut's criteria,
Quoth Jim:
>If I remember correctly, some of Hammurabi's code referred to market
transactions. If there any experts on this subject reading this,
please correct me if I'm wrong.<
Respondeth Lou:
> I am an expert. You are wrong.
One small addition to Lou's thoughts - they're probably wrong.
Th
Jim Devine:
>Merchant capital = buying & selling consumer and producer goods on the
>market, M-C-M. As Marx argues, it's impossible (for a system of merchant
>capital as a whole) to extort surplus-labor -- and produce a
>surplus-product -- simply through buying and selling such goods.[*]
Look
At 04:29 PM 05/25/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>Jim Devine:
> >with regard to the case of contemporary Africa: in the world system,
> >merchant capital has become subordinated to industrial capital (part of a
> >unified system), so one might say that Africa is dominated by industrial
> >capital even if
Grundrisse, p. 513.
Louis Proyect wrote:
> Karl Marx, "Theories of Surplus Value, part 2":
>
> "The fact that we now not only call the plantation owners in America
> capitalists, but that they *are* capitalists, is based on their existence
> as anomalies within a world market based on free labor
32 matches
Mail list logo
