>now, clearly marx regards this as important from the perspective of a
>transitional phase, of preparing the ground for the abolition of
>capitalism as such. I am not so sure of this. however, marx does see
>this as something which falls outside the definition of capitalism as
>the reign of private property. that he regards this as a
>"self-dissolving contradiction" would be to continue to define
>capitalism as the reign of private property, such that it is treated
>as 'anomalous'. it is certainly contradictory, and it certainly
>embodies the antagonisms of capital in a different way to that of
>personalized and direct ownership, but there is an objectivist
>catastrophism inherent in the above passage (taken on its own) which
>continues to think of the joint stock company as an anomaly when it,
>like the rescheduling of credit, has become a condition of
>stabilization (or at least a new regime of capital's momentary
>stability).
Marx was wrong in saying that the joint-stock company represented "private production without the control of private property"; I've spilled lots of ink (and charged a few pixels) recording and analyzing the assertions of shareholder control that have characterized U.S. capitalism since the early 1980s. But I think he's right to argue that the joint-stock form offers a great hint of the possibility of transcending private ownership; it is a form of social property (though the circle of ownership, and even more of control, is drawn rather tightly) in sharp contrast with the personal or family capitalism of the 19th century in Europe & North America, and in Asia and Latin America today (though less & less so, as they go joint stock too). I think it's also a mistake to call the contradiction "self-dissolving"; I'm hoping that pointing out the contradiction might be enough to make people act to dissolve it, but that's awfully optimistic of me, isn't it?
Doug