Re: Richard Wolff's state capitalism

["Al Whitlock" <al_whitlock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>
>Even during the worst moments of the fSU, profit seems
>not to have been the driving force of production. And
>since the way in which social surplus is allocated is
>a central issue when we come to define the mode of
>production, it is obvious that the fSU was not a
>"state capitalist" formation. There is no capitalism
>that is not grounded on individual greed.
>
>Nestor.
>

I wonder, has anyone on this list pondered the difference between capital
and capitalism?  After all, Marx's great work was Das Kapital, not Das
Kapitalismus.  I thought capital was inseperable from two things, the
commodity and the extraction of surplus labour/value.  If The fSU was not
involved with surplus labour/value, then it was probaly a bull's foot.  But
does that say that it was 'capitalist' or some other manifestation of what
capital is all about?
Al W

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com