[PEN-L:4830] Re: Marx, Usury, Exploitation

[GSKILLMAN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

I have some concerns re Jim's representation of what I have to say
(or to put it in Jim's terms, the "view" I'm "pushing") with respect
to the topic listed in the subject header, but I'm not going to
pursue them here because to do so would 1) take us over ground
already heavily travelled on this net a couple of years ago, and 2)
if you want to know what I really say on these issues, you can check
out my article forthcoming at long last in the October 1995 issue of
Economics & Philosophy (to which Jim contributed substantially via
his role in the earlier PEN debates and his articles with Gary
Dymski; my article considers those arguments in depth, as well as
many of the issues raised in Jim's recent post).

Instead I'll pursue an issue that does break new ground and may
interest some PEN'rs as well:  does Jim's e-post accurately reflect
Marx's views on the nature of exploitation prior to the era of
precapitalist production?  I'd say it doesn't, in at least three
fundamental ways, but I'll let you be the judge.  To keep things
manageable I'll follow with three separate and fairly short posts
devoted respectively to the following questions:

1)  What is meant by formal subsumption of labor under capital?

2)  Was formal subsumption historically necessary for exploitation
 (in the strict sense of expropriation of surplus labor) via circuits
of capital which preceded the era of capitalist production?

3)  If not, did such exploitation presume instead that individual
capitalists had market (i.e., price-setting) power?

I need hardly add that if the answer to the latter two questions is
"no", then the canonical interpretation of Marx and Marxian economics
needs some rethinking.

Some background:  like Jim, I've been stimulated by PEN discussions
to reread Marx with an eye to understanding his position on key
issues.  Like Jim, I'm not a Marxologist or a fan of textual exegesis
for its own sake, but would like to now what Marx says in context.  I
have gone a bit further afield in this re-reading, looking for
corroboration of some emerging patterns in Marx's argument by
checking out the GRUNDRISSE and THEORIES OF SURPLUS VALUE in addition
to the volumes of CAPITAL and the companion material in the
RESULTATE.

This process has been unexpectedly fascinating, sort of like
following an unfolding detective story.

For those of you who are interested, see you next post.

Gil Skillman