[OPE-L:1711] Re: Do bears accumulate in the woods?

Paul Zarembka (ecopaulz@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu)
Fri, 5 Apr 1996 07:11:51 -0800

[ show plain text ]

Sorry, I still do not understand you, Iwao. Of course accumulation is
reproduction on a progressive scale. I don't think we disagree
on anything at all since I think I agree with everything you write on
this. Is there some phrasing of mine you are not comfortable with?

Paul Z.

On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, Iwao Kitamura wrote:

> Iwao[1667]:
> >> But there's a term 'expanded scale of reproduction' placed just before
> >> the phrase ""accumulation, reproduces the capital-relation on a progressive
> >> scale,...".
> Paul Z.[1691]:
> >Iwao, my edition reads "reproduction on a progressive scale, ie,
> >accumulation..." but in any case I don't see why you point this out.
> Iwao:
> 'expanded scale of reproduction' was my translation and may differ
> some nuances from the original "die Reproduction auf erweiterter
> Stufenleiter oder.."(Dietz). Marx see this and 'accumulation' same
> meanings as it(they) reproduce(s) capital-relation on a progressive
> scale. At this fundamental part of the GLCA chapter, Marx defines
> the term "accumulation" as reproduction on a progressive scale.
> It's obvious. Then he expands his theory of GLCA.
> Iwao[1667]
> >> But more scale of capital-relation doesn't define accumulation though
> >> it well characterises that.
> Paul Z.[1691]
> >Why does it not define it? If that doesn't define it, what does?
> Iwao:
> I think we may begin with the definition of accumulation as "reproduction
> on a progressive scale" in theorizing GLCA.
> Iwao
> ----------------------
> Iwao Kitamura
> mail-to: ikita@st.rim.or.jp