Yes to the first point, no to the second.
Yes in that of course, production of surplus value as the motive force of capital is the historically limited thing.
No to the second in that capital arises out of exchange and takes hold of production. In practice of course the two things are mutually reinforcing. But any generalised exchange would create the basis for capital, and free exchange of labour power - at its normal value - still gives capital surplus value.
In message <lV5ykFAuUbv3EwoQ at lewhiggins.freeserve.co.uk>, Lew <lew at lewhi
ggins.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>In article <2C6bwYAQpSv3MwLW at heartfield.demon.co.uk>, Jim heartfield
><jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>its not the specific distribution that is exceptionable, but the _form_
>>of the distribution, ie that it takes the form of an alien force over
>>people, coercing them. (here I take the surplus to be capital, a social
>>relation).
>
>Point of clarification. Are you saying that what is exceptionable is the
>specific form of distribution, surplus value, not the form of
>production? What about Marx's argument that the form of production
>determines the form of distribution?
>
>I think I am right in saying that the problem Marx identified was not
>one of *distribution* (still less *re-distribution*), but rather
>capitalism's inability to direct *production* solely towards human
>needs.
>
>>Marx's argument was that it is
>>the operation of the law of value that guarantees the monopoly over the
>>means of production.
>
>The other way round surely? It is the class monopoly of the means of
>production which guarantees the operation of the law of value. Marx
>argued that the law of value exerted an external coercive influence on
>human affairs under capitalism, in a way similar to a law of nature. But
>the "law" of value does not actually have an existence separate from or
>prior to, as a law of nature does, the historically specific actions of
>human beings in a capitalist society.
>
-- Jim heartfield