[OPE-L:3064] Re: Defining accumulation

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Tue May 09 2000 - 09:08:32 EDT

[ show plain text ]

Paul Cockshott <wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk> said, on 05/09/00 at 10:18 AM:

>>Luxemburg demonstrates the problem with Marx's reproduction schemes if
>>penetration of non-capitalist formations is excluded before issues are
>>joined. Nobody is stopping anyone from trying such a delimitation but
>>then we have Luxemburg's penetrating insights to deal with when following
>>through with the implications for Marxism.

>Do we then assume that we can no longer analyse accumulation in fully
>capitalist economies, or more generally in a fully capitalist world?

Yes, and it is exactly what Luxemburg's 475-page book tries to illuminate,
both theoretically and analyzing predecessors and successors to Marx.
However, my paper indicates that Luxemburg did not clarify the definition
of accumulation of capital and thus her work needs to be built upon.

Does anyone know of any other book in Marxist theory -- after Marx --
which is as long as Luxemburg's on her topic. The book sitting on my desk
right now: Ollman's *Alienation* is 325 pages. Of course, length has no
one-to-one correspondence with substance, but Luxemburg's 475 pages are
packed with substance.

Paul Z.

"Accumulation of Capital, its Definition: A Century after Lenin and
Luxemburg": http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka/len-lux.htm

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:08 EDT