Doug Henwood wrote:
> [clip]
> And, a couple of pages later: (Quotation from Marx)
>
> > But within the capitalist system itself, this expropriation takes
> > the antithetical form of the appropriation of social property by a
> > few; and credit gives these few ever more the character of simple
> > adventurers. Since ownership now exists in the form of shares, its
> > movement and transfer become simply the result of stock-exchange
> > dealings, where little fishes are gobbled up by the sharks, and
> > sheep by the stock-exchange wolves. In the joint-stock system,
> > there is already a conflict with the old form, in which the means
> > of social production appear as individual property. But the
> > transformation into the form of shares still remains trapped within
> > the capitalist barriers; instead of overcoming the opposition
> > between the character of wealth as something social, and private
> > wealth, this transformation only develops this opposition in a new
> > form.... Without the factory system that arises from the capitalist
> > mode of production, cooperative factories could not develop. Nor
> > could they do so without the credit system that develops from the
> > same mode of production.
So far, so good.
> > This credit system, since it forms the
> > principal basis for the gradual transformation of capitalist
> > private enterprises into capitalist joint-stock companies, presents
> > in the same way the means for the gradual extension of cooperative
> > enterprises on a more or less national scale.
This is an observation by no means necessarily following from the analysis that preceded it. It is an empirical, not a theoretical claim, and its validity can only be confirmed by empirical history.
> > Capitalist joint-
> > stock companies as much as cooperative factories should be viewed
> > as transition forms from the capitalist mode of production to the
> > associated one, simply that in the one case the opposition is
> > abolished in a negative way, and in the other in a positive way
> > (Marx 1981, pp. 571–572)
This is an empirical prediction, and Marx offers no evidence for it. It certainly doesn't follow _necessarily_ from the preceding analysis. I'm not sure it makes any sense at all except as wishful thinking.
> So the correct line is that the credit system is actually an advance
> on small-scale production and petty ownership; the loon you quoted
> wants to go back to the old days instead.
"Advance" here is too ambiguous and free-floating to be saying anything. I certainly agree with your point about the loon -- but rejection of his looniness (and potential racism) does not depend on any moral judgment of whether corporate organization is or is not an "advance." (What kind of advance on what from whose point of view?) We won't know _at all_ whether GE is more or less easy to transform into associated mode of production until after the fact -- when both you and I are dead. What would be gained by socializing a GM assembly plant in Michigan if all the parts were manufactured in other parts of the world, perhaps/probably parts engaged in chaotic civil wars. That is sort of empty speculation, but no emptier than Marx's or your speculation.
Carrol
>
> Marx 1971 = Theories of Surplus Value, vol. 3 (Progress)
> Marc 1981 = Capital, vol. 3 (Vintage)
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk