[OPE-L:1691] Re: Do bears accumulate in the woods?

Paul Zarembka (ecopaulz@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu)
Thu, 4 Apr 1996 07:03:06 -0800

[ show plain text ]

On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Iwao Kitamura wrote:

> But there's a term 'expanded scale of reproduction' placed just before
> the phrase ""accumulation, reproduces the capital-relation on a progressive
> scale,...".

Iwao, my edition reads "reproduction on a progressive scale, ie,
accumulation..." but in any case I don't see why you point this out.

> Accumulation derives more scale of capital-relation.

If you mean that accumulation means more or larger capitalists and more
labaor hours, I agree.

> But more scale of capital-relation doesn't define accumulation though
> it well characterises that.

Why does it not define it? If that doesn't define it, what does?

> I tend to think that "The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation" points
> production of relative surplus population. Capitalist accumulation
> unavoidably causes unemployment=reserve army. And thus derived unemployment
> becomes a necessary condition for existence of capitalist mode of production.
> This is what Marx shows in the chapter of GLCA.

I agree with this. The quotes I called up from GLCA are at the
beginning of the chapter and serve to summarize what has been learned from
the two preceeding chapters: simple reproduction and conversion of
surplus value into capital. The latter chapter is particularly important in
my view, since it defines accumulation of capital.

Paul Z.