On Jun 12, 2012, at 11:52 AM, Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>> His - I won't call it a failure because he doesn't even seem interested in trying to make the case - lack of interest in investigating capitalism as a social system with some unique characteristics really seems to come from the anarchist obsession with the state above all else. So much of the Occupy movement is - was? - about space and state but has a lot of trouble talking about production and property.
>
> I remember you mentioned earlier that you don't think Graeber actually
> understands what capitalism is. Is his explanation on Louis Proyect's
> blog ignorant?
I never thought it was ignorance. Graeber's a very smart and informed guy. It's more an ideological bias.
> (This is a question to everyone in general, not you
> specifically.) Should he focus more on property relations between
> people?
That's The System's choice, not ours.
>
> "In response to the question about what is capitalism, I must say
> that, rather like Marx actually, I’m not too keen on the word. I do
> use it I have to admit, it’s hard not to, but I tend to prefer to
> talk about capital, which can be defined roughly as productive
> wealth deployed so as to accumulate more wealth through the
> exploitation, direct or indirect, or labor power, realized through
> surplus value.
True enough. And it's rather prominent these days, no? So why go onto this?
> It is hardly the only form of value realization that
> occurs in any society, or “social formation” if you prefer.
Which is to undermine the dominance of capital under capitalism. I don't get the reticence about using the word, whether Marx did or not. But he wants to argue that there are all these communist forms hidden or embedded in capitalist societies. True up to a point, but really not dominant, and not necessarily the base of any project of transformation.
And this is to miss the whole point of the capitalist labor market:
>
> "I personally don’t think it’s helpful to make a strict distinction
> between slaves who are only kept alive and wage laborers who are
> compensated, since that would mean a lot of slaves aren’t slaves,
> since often slaves were rented out and received half their wages as
> a stipend – in fact, this was the primary form of wage labor in the
> ancient world! But that’s another conversation."
I don't what he's trying to say here, really.
Doug