My impression from Marx is that usury tends to disrupt some pre-
capitalist modes of production and to change others in other
directions, depending on the nature of the pre-capitalist mode.
Thus, isn't it true that usury helped create serfdom in the
late Roman empire?
This fits with the second
Marx, c3 International Publishers
596: "Usury ... exerts ... an undermining and destructive influence on ancient
and feudal wealth and ancient and feudal property [I]t undermines and
ruins small-peasant and small-burgher production."
597: Usury has a revolutionary effect in all
On Sun, 27 Feb 1994 13:36:27 -0500 (EST) Doug Henwood said:
Yes I'd be interested in seeing cites on this. I'd prefer a formulation
more like bloodsucking leeches, or in Marx's own phrase, fabulous
parasites, rather than a progressive force.
Does that mean that KM agrees with Michael Jensen and
Marx, c3 International Publishers
596: "Usury ... exerts ... an undermining and destructive influence on ancient
and feudal wealth and ancient and feudal property [I]t undermines and
ruins small-peasant and small-burgher production."
597: Usury has a revolutionary effect in all
Yes I'd be interested in seeing cites on this. I'd prefer a formulation
more like bloodsucking leeches, or in Marx's own phrase, fabulous
parasites, rather than a progressive force.
Does that mean that KM agrees with Michael Jensen and other apologists for
the 1980s, who argue that the buyout
Yes I'd be interested in seeing cites on this. I'd prefer a formulation
more like bloodsucking leeches, or in Marx's own phrase, fabulous
parasites, rather than a progressive force.
Does that mean that KM agrees with Michael Jensen and other apologists for
the 1980s, who argue that the buyout
One addendum on usury: Marx saw that, even thought it was just M-M', usury
could be progressive since it forced producers to increase their surplus.
I can dig up citations if anyone is interested.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel.
