My point was that in fixating on the exotic thefts that happen at the margins, the central story of capital accumulation through the exploitation of labour is obscured. So what I object to is the following, which is just not true:
"when the bloated paper values are far out of alignment with real reproductive values in the closed system (capitalists and wage laborers) THIS GAP IS COVERED BY LOOT, i.e. primitive accumulation in the broad sense I use it. Hence its permanence: because capitalism is an anarchic system, it necessarily generates that gap, and it must cover it by sucking in material wealth (labor power, commodities) wherever they can be found, to compliment the surplus value generated in the pure system, or cannibalize existing labor power, plant and infrastructure inside the closed system."
The 'broad sense' that Loren uses it is no sense at all, and an unnecessary and confusing vulgarisation of the precise and compelling meaning of Marx's original category of primitive accumulation.
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20061209/cede06d8/attachment.htm>