Re: 'accumulation' proper v. 'primitive' or 'primary' or 'by dispossession'

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Mon May 10 2004 - 23:28:47 EDT

On Sun, 9 May 2004, Jurriaan Bendien wrote:

> Well I can tell you what my understanding of it is. Capital is value lodged
> in tradeable objects or money


No need for me to go further.  "Capital" -- Marx's title -- concerns the
social relation between capitalists and wage-laborers, i.e., the class
relation; it is not about 'value lodged in tradeable objects or money'.
(You are guilty of what Marx wrote concerning "the economists": "they
transform capital from a relationship into a thing" -- T.S.V., III, Chp.
XXI, p. 272.)


> The rate of accumulation can be measured as the net increase in real capital
> stock, or as the rate of re-investment of realised capital assets.

Thus, capital as a thing leads to this neoclassical expression.


> A problem of so-called "primitive, original or primary" accumulation arises
> in economics, not simply because the origin of capital must be explained
> without myth, but because the transformation of money capital or commodity
> capital into production capital is not simply an automatic process. It
> requires that you can actually buy and sell means of production and labour
> capacity, and for that purpose, means of production and labour capacity must
> be (1) privatised and (2) tradeable. Another way of putting the same thing
> is, that market expansion is not simply an automatic process, or simply a
> commercial process, but a social-political process, since making things
> tradeable and privatising them, requires changing social relations and
> social rules for the disposition of economic resources and assets, i.e. the
> assertion of power.

I'm much more comfortable with the above.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 12 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT