Return-Path: <JulioHuato@aol.com>
Delivered-To: andy@mira.net
From: JulioHuato <JulioHuato@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 10:40:18 EST
To: andy@mira.net
Subject: Re: on Alex's points
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)

<<Surplus Value, is characteristic of "civilisation", i.e. class society up
till now. Thus, capitalism is only one specific mode of production of surplus
value, as against feudalism, slave society, etc., viz., one in which labour
power becomes a commodity and accumulated surplus value takes the form of
capital.. >>

IMO, capitalism is NOT only ONE "specific mode of production of surplus
value."  It is THE mode of production of surplus value.  The appropriation of
surplus product (put out by surplus labor time) is characteristic of
"civilization."  Exploitation is characteristic of civilization.  But surplus
VALUE is not.  As Alex says, surplus value is not unique to capitalism but it
only became prevalent in capitalism.  It is the essence of capitalism only.

The modes of production of noncapitalist class societies were NOT modes of
production of surplus value.  To be sure, there was surplus value production
but only in the outskirts of those societies.  To the extent that
precapitalist societies had surplus-value production, they had premature
incrustations of capitalism, germs.  But those germs were fundamentally
incompatible with their basic tissue (modes of production).

Mainly, they were modes of production of surplus product.  However, the
product did not take the form of commodity but rarely.  They were modes of
production of surplus labor-time.  However, the labor time did not take the
form of value but rarely.  In those societies, the surplus labor time was
expended in the production of use-values, directly aimed at meeting the needs
of the rulers (luxurious consumption, pyramids, etc.).  No surplus value here.

So, IMO, accumulated surplus value does not "take the form" of capital --
accumulated surplus value IS capital.

Now, "generalized commodity production" is the specific characteristic of
capitalism, IF by "generalized" we mean such highly developed commodity
production that even the connection between means of production and labor
power (precondition of any production) is mediated by commodity exchange,
because labor power itself appears now as a commodity.

So, IMO, "generalized commodity production" designates the same reality as
"surplus value production."  They are two different ways to refer to the
Essence of capitalism.  They are not identical formulas, but IMO they do refer
to one and the same thing.  In the former, we describe capitalist production
as a superlative form of commodity production in general.  In the latter, we
describe capitalist production as a superlative form of exploitative
production.  The emphasis is placed differently.  In the former we refer to
the essence of capitalism insofar as it is DIFFERENT from other class
societies.  In the latter we refer to the essence of capitalism insofar as it
is SIMILAR to other class societies.  Capitalist production is both.  It is
exploitative and it is peculiarly so.

Now, to the extent that highly developed commodity production (and exchange)
is a historical precondition of capitalism, I'd think that the expression
"generalized commodity production" is a fair way to designate the Ground of
capitalism -- provided I understand what "Ground" means.