tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3397216998476879819.post1534941830496969015..comments2023-10-23T15:27:44.794-04:00Comments on capital reading group: A response to Max's post.andyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10471554437242328309noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3397216998476879819.post-29200644727166031292009-06-29T19:21:53.327-04:002009-06-29T19:21:53.327-04:00Andy - this raises really interesting questions:
...Andy - this raises really interesting questions:<br /><br />The thing that is really difficult to think through is that on the one hand, its necessary at this point to recognize that there are historIES of capitalism, but on the other hand, what connects these - either economically or logically - under the category of capitalism? If we go the way of Eley by disregarding wage labor as the identifying moment of capitalist socio-economic relations, then we also disregard the most basic definition that Marx gives throughout all three volumes - that beyond coinage, trade, markets, collective production, lending, hoarding, speculation, commodity networks, etc it is ONLY when (historically?logically?) commodified labour becomes the general form of production of a society (and thus its social form) that capitalism emerges. <br /><br />So in the Eley case does non-wage labour indicate a capitalist history since it anticipates this later? Or, is it encased within a larger commodities market that is based generally on capitalist production? Or....<br /><br />As Marx himself indicated in this volume:<br /><br />“Whatever the origin of the commodities that go into the circulation process of industrial capitalism…whatever therefore may be the social form of the production process which these commodities derive – they confront industrial capital straight away in its form of commodity capital, they themselves having the form of commodity-dealing or merchant’s capital; and this by its very nature embraces commodities from all modes of production. (190)”<br /><br />This seems to indicate that commodities produced outside of capitalist production still _can_ enter into the 'logic' of capitalism - that capitalism cannot think or view outside of its own logic - i.e. that it confronts those 'things' as always-already commodities and assumes them into its own forms/circuits.<br /><br />If this is the case, then what about for the system/form on the outside? This would bring us back to the Dobb/Sweezey debate it seems - where the debate was if capitalism emerges WITHIN a system in the process of socio-economic transformation, or is this effected by its external market (i.e., certain market tendencies that then fold back into the pre-capitalist system and re-organizes its very mode of production).......<br /><br />Those are just some thoughts....still thinking this through....I will have to read the Eley for sure though.Maxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09192701065753965428noreply@blogger.com