RE: Poirot's point

[Clifford Poirot <cpoirot@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bill,

My best suggestion for clarifying the relationship between mercantile
exchange and capitalism is to refer to the vast literature on this topic.
Again, I highly recommend Eric Wolf as he treats a complex and vast
literature quite clearly and logically-whether or not one agrees in entirety
with Wolf's Marxist framework. Wolf provides as many cites as one might wish
to follow the literature further. Another good starting point is Stuart
Plattner "Economic Anthropology". My preference for these sources is their
historical, anthropological and cross cultural treatment of the different
modes of production and exchange, as well as of the different types of money
and credit.

That said, I might add that some of the problems you are pointing out lie I
think in Marx's refusal to acknowledge that value could be created in
exchange. Nonetheless, there is a substantial difference between production
by peasant-artisans using simple and small amounts of fixed capital, while
continuing to be owners of the productive resources and capitalists
organizing production based on ever increasing amounts of fixed capital. In
the former, merchants contract with peasant-artisans and sell goods in
"distant" markets. They do not have to be "foreign" markets: though
historically, the development of mercantilism entails linking up markets
both on a national and global level.

In addition to the above cited sources, I will blow my own horn and refer
you to an article I wrote several years ago based on my dissertation:
"Institutions and Economic Evolution" in the Journal of Economic Issues,
September, 1993. If you are really interested in this issue there is a
pretty good bibliography at the end of that essay.

-----Original Message-----
From: William B. Ryan [mailto:william_b_ryan@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 6:12 PM
To: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Poirot's point


1.  [Poirot] http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/pkt/2000/msg02439.html

"You missed the argument.  Marx's distinction between mercantilism and
capitalism is an historical one...Nonetheless, the distinction between
the buying up and putting out period and that of organizing production
in factories is a valid one..."
-----//

This refers to my interpretation of M-C-M'.  I am inclined to take
your word for this but will admit I don't understand it at all.
Doesn't the following express the conventional interpretation?

"In the first paragraph [Marx] is assuming a diagram, which you might
write into the margin of your book: M-C-M'.  Money is exchanged for
some commodity, which is then exchanged again for money, but a larger
sum, M'.  The capitalist [note the term 'capitalist'] invests his
money in something, which he then sells and gets a larger sum of
money...So, to explain how the capitalist's [again the term
'capitalist'] money grows, he says:

'The change must therefore, take place in the commodity bought by the
first act, M-C, but not in its value, i.e. its exchange value, for
equivalents are exchanged and the commodity is paid for at its full
value.'

"...So the theory is that this commodity must be one that creates
additional exchange value by being used.  The only commodity that can
do that is labour power...Notice that he says labour power, not just
labour.  The capitalist does not buy 10 hours of labour, because then
if equivalents are exchanged...he would have to give the equivalent of
10 hours of labour in return, and he would make no profit..."

2.  [Poirot]

"...The merchant [which didn't you just say pertains to "Mercantilism"
not "Capitalism"?] buys C from the home producer and sells it in a
market [are you then saying that this is limited to sales into a
FOREIGN market as opposed to the domestic market?] for more than the
merchant paid the home producer..."
-----//

I will contend that even foreign trade is creditary production.

The reality is better put this way:

The merchant accepts delivery of C from the home producer and expects
to sell it for more than he has CONTRACTED to pay the home producer or
his surrogate, the financier.

3.  [Rosser] http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/pkt/2000/msg02286.html

"So, would you [addressed rhetorically to Professor Isaac]
characterize the TSS approach to the LTV [referring to the Labor
Theory of Value] that has been advocated on this list by Andrew Kliman
to be essentially just an 'ex post accounting identity' or perhaps as
merely a hat trick?"
-----//

Yes, as can be demonstrated from Kliman's own postings to this list.

william_b_ryan@xxxxxxxxxxx

P.S. You might see that for the first time I have used Geoffrey's
neologism, "creditary."  I think it intuitively conveys the reality of
the situation better than its Keynesian alternative, monetary
production.




Great Gift Idea!  FREE cell phone, internet ready at Lycos Marketplace
 http://www.inphonic.lycos.com/redirect.asp?referringpage=www.lycosd1