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

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Tue May 11 2004 - 14:52:30 EDT

On Tue, 11 May 2004, Jurriaan Bendien wrote:

> > "Marx's own text proves beyond any doubt"... uhm?  Reads like a dogmatism
> > to me.  Anyway, if I thought "Capital" and Marx's total work does not have
> > the specific social relations of the production in the capitalist mode of
> > production as capital's basic meaning, I'd close up shop.
> If you wish to accuse me of dogmatism, then prove your case,

How about "proves beyond any [sic] doubt" compared to "De omnibus
dubitandum" [doubt everything -- Marx, 1865]?

Anyway, my wording was a milder "reads like a dogmatism".

> I think you ought to "close up shop"

No thanks.

> Mark Jones was not a Stalinist, although sometimes he apologised unduly
> for Stalin's policies, in the sense that he believed that brutal policies
> were inevitable and necessary under the circumstances, even if the
> evidence suggests other options existed, and could easily have been
> taken. His argument was specifically that if we are serious about
> wishing to create a socialist economy, we must realise that the Soviet
> experiment revealed many important lessons in this regard, and that any
> future socialist experiment would contain at least some features which were
> pioneered in the former Soviet Union, because there is simply no
> other way to do it.

Reads like a Stalinism to me, and any specific brutality can be mistake,
or not a mistake ("inevitable and necessary under the circumstances").  A
Tukhachevsky deserved the brutality he got, or did not deserve.  90%
deserved the brutality they got or "only" 10% did (but "we" missed 5%).

> ... But you cannot simultaneously say that the
> social relation is "the basis of capital" and also that it IS capital.
> That does not make sense, at least not for a true scholar.

You got me there.

> ... Your statements are not supported with
> any cogent argument, it is in my opinion equivalent to an
> alchemist talking about phlogiston.

> ... I will desist for now and
> concentrate on other topics. I do not wish to go endlessly
> over the same thing. If you always do the same thing, you
> always get the same result, and that becomes ineffectual.

Me too.  Paul

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