[OPE-L:3201] Reply to Gil and Ajit: Simple Commodity Production/ "Contemporary society"

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Mon May 15 2000 - 10:16:57 EDT

[ show plain text ]

_Capital_, Vol. 2, Chp. 20, on "Simple Reproduction" (Progress, p.425):

"there are here only two classes: the working-class disposing only of its
labor-power, and the capitalist class, which has a monopoly of the social
means of production and the money".

Bearing on the same point, Luxemburg (_Acc. of Capital_, pp. 331-33) cites
two other passages from Vol. 2, one from Vol. 3, and one from _Theories of
Surplus Value_, in addition to the passage from Vol. 1 I already posted. I
haven't made a exhaustive search for all citations.

RE Gil:

In other words, the theoretical space does not include simple commodity
production (or any other form of production).

RE Ajit's commentary on Fred:

Buying and selling cannot be "independent" of the capital--wage labor
relationship in the theoretical space of Marx (theoretical space is NOT
identical with any existing society) for analyzing capitalist society.

I will note that Ajit has said "I read a *book* or a series of books as an
object that needs to be analyzed on its own, irrespective of what the
author meant" (OPE-L 3175). Therefore he does not matter to him what Marx
meant: Ajit will have his own reading. I don't completely get how to do
that, without losing the audience.

Paul Z.

Paul Zarembka, on OS/2 and supporting RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY at
********************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka

Gil Skillman <gskillman@mail.wesleyan.edu> said, on 05/14/00 at 04:03 PM:

>Note that this passage doesn't quite say what you want it to, Paul. It
>doesn't say that all production is capitalist production; it says rather
>that capitalism is established in every nation and is in every branch of
>industry. That would be true if putting-out and family firms operated in
>branch along side them.

On Mon, 15 May 2000, Ajit Sinha wrote

> > "Contemporary society" IS a society with the capital--wage labor relation,
> > not a society in which the buyer and seller "COULD exist independent of
> > capital-labor production relation". Marx's passage is supportive of Fred
> > rather than Ajit.
> >
> > Paul Z.
> ______________________
> Paul, who is denying that the "contemporary society" means capitalist society.
> However, the simplest social form in which the labor product is presented, is
> the relationship between a buyer and a seller. This relationship could exist
> independent of capital-labor relation. Cheers, ajit sinha

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EDT