Re: Reply to Philip

["Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky" <gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

En relación a Reply to Philip,
el 12 Mar 00, a las 18:24, Hinrich Kuhls dijo:

> At 14:12 12.03.00 +0900, Philip L Ferguson wrote:
>
> >No, my point is clearly different from George's.  The capitalist mode
> >of production cannot prevail in other societies.  Capitalism is the
> >society in which commodity production is dominant.  That is what is
> >most distinct about capitalism.  There is no other form of society in
> >which commodity production is dominant, and thus no other form of
> >society in which wealth can be measured in commodities.
>
> What is most distinct about capitalism:
>
> "In the controversies on this subject the chief fact has generally
> been overlooked, viz., the *differentia specifica of capitalist
> production*: Labour-power is sold today, not with a view of
> satisfying, by its service or by its product, the personal needs of
> the buyer. His aim is augmentation of his capital, production of
> commodities containing more labour than he pays for, containing
> therefore a portion of value that costs him nothing, and that is
> nevertheless realised when the commodities are sold. Production of
> surplus-value is the absolute law of this mode of production..."
>
> [Marx, Capital, Volume 1, Chapter "The General Law of Capitalist
> Accumulation"]

If you can explain how can you make production of surplus-value the
absolute "law" of a mode of production without "domination" (and I
would add "insidious and pervasively cancerous introduction") by
commodities, then you have made a point. If not, you have confused
two concepts again. This time, "domination" and "legality".

>
> >In pre-capitalist societies (whether feudalism or the slave systems
> >of antiquity, or the 'primitive communism' of pre-class societies all
> >over the globe), production was not carried out predominantly for the
> >market.  There was *some* commodity production in a whole range of
> >societies before capitalism, but it was marginal not dominant.
>
> It's not as easy as this. Marx:
>
> "The correct observation and deduction (of the capitalist relations of
> production) as having themselves become in history, always leads to
> primary equations ..., which point towards a past lying behind this
> system. These indications, *together with a correct grasp of the
> present*, then also offer the key to the understanding of the past..."
>
> [Marx, Grundrisse, p. 460-461]

Mercantile relations existed long ago before capitalism. But it is
only when they are fully extended to the whole social structure that
this structure becomes capitalist, and in this very moment all
relations begin to become commodified. What Marx termed the
"fetishism of commodities" exists in capitalists formations only. The
turning point lies in the moment when human labor becomes, in
general, a commodity.

>
> >In post-capitalist societies, like the former Soviet bloc or Cuba or
> >China, production was also not for the market and not ruled by the
> >law of value (although I think in China it is going back that way,
> >and in the Soviet bloc it already has).
>
> Youth is accompanied by courage. I thought the question of markets in
> post-capitalist societies is still a topic of socialist discussion.

Yes, I agree with you, it is still a topic of discussion and a very
important practical issue (imagine that we Argentinians enter the
path towards socialism tomorrow: shall we be able to deal with the
most basic social needs of our population without a market? and, what
shall we have to do with this market?). But this does not make Phil's
point less valid. Production in the post-capitalist bloc (I like this
wording) was not "dominated" by the market. This is the central issue
in debate, I guess. But the very existence of this debate makes us
aware that something happens with market in those societies,
something different than in a capitalist society.





Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky@xxxxxxxxxxx