[OPE-L:7433] Re: Re: Re Aoki on K and M on money

From: Gil Skillman (gskillman@mail.wesleyan.edu)
Date: Fri Jul 19 2002 - 15:44:37 EDT

Don't worry about summarizing the key elements of the Zmolek--Albritton 
exchange, Rakesh, I just went and scanned it myself. Despite some annoying 
aspects I found it quite interesting--many thanks for bringing it to my 
attention.  I'm also interested in pursuing our point of agreement re the 
putting-out system.  I believe we can do this without risking a return to 
the Chapter 5 quagmire.

You write

>I shall not re-engage your ch 5 criticism (which I had recently mentioned) 
>except to say that we are both agreed that putting out manufacture can be 
>a form of surplus value production.

Viewing the putting-out system through the lens of Marx's analytical 
categories, I understand the putting-out system to be an instance of the 
circuit of merchant's capital that involves the commodification of labor 
power but *not* the subsumption of labor under capital, in even the formal 
sense.  Insofar a this system is a form of surplus value production, then 
subsumption is not required for capitalist exploitation, or at least wasn't 
required under the class conditions obtaining in that era.

If this is an accurate summary, it prompts two questions:  first, what made 
it possible for capitalist exploitation to occur without even the formal 
subsumption of labor under capital, and second, would it be possible for 
surplus value to exist--if perhaps not at the same magnitude as in the 
circuit of industrial capital characterized by wage labor and capitalist 
production--on the basis of putting-out production under modern class 

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Aug 02 2002 - 00:00:04 EDT