Re: [Marxism] Rosa Luxemburg's 'The Accumulation of Capital', , 100 years on

[Patrick Bond via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

On 2017/09/06 06:41 PM, Walter Daum via Marxism wrote:


Hi Patrick, Of course I agree that the three “grabs” you mention 
occur, and that they are crucial for capitalist production. But I 
don’t agree that they are, in today’s conditions, non-capitalist. They 
are part of how capitalist economy works; they exist in addition to 
the direct extraction of surplus-value in the sphere of production. 


The "in addition to" is what we're trying to get at, using the theory of 
uneven and combined development in application sites such as South Africa.


Luxemburg held that capitalism required not just the grabbing of extra 
surplus-value outside the production sphere – it needed to loot by 
force non-capitalist *modes of production.* 


Yes, the way we have traditionally described that process in this part 
of the world is as the "articulations of modes of production" (Harold 
Wolpe developed the concept during the 1970s, making some unfortunate 
errors en route, by failing to distinguish necessary from contingent 
processes within this articulation, such as the apartheid state form).


Harvey's student Neil Smith remarked how this process of articulation 
was a moment within capitalism's uneven development. (More on this: p.5 
of 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304622213_Uneven_Development_and_Scale_Politics_in_Southern_Africa_What_We_Learn_from_Neil_Smith_Uneven_Development_in_Southern_Africa 
)


The Marikana massacre was the forcible suppression of a strike within 
capitalist production, a strike by proletarian miners whose labor was 
super-exploited by capitalists. 


Yes, but in a context of migrant labour, which is the main symptom here 
of articulations of modes of production. There's not space in Louis' 
allowed commentary - still, I think 35kb - but there are plenty of good 
articles and a few books which make it abundantly clear how the workers 
demanded a $1000/month living wage because they were compelled to keep 
two households - one in the shack settlements of Nkaneng and Wonderkop, 
and the other back in their home region. This was the logic of a system 
in which Lonmin draws profits not just from surplus value at the point 
of production, but also from "free gifts of nature" (platinum, water, 
coal to fire electricity) and from ongoing disruption of the 
reproduction of a rural society (in labour-sending areas) that, for 
centuries before mining-based colonialism, was itself a coherent mode of 
peasant production. Marikana must be seen in context.


Luxemburg’s scheme doesn’t apply here. As John Smith said in the post 
that triggered this discussion: “Harvey is right to draw attention to 
the continuing and even increasing importance of old and new forms of 
accumulation by dispossession, but he does not recognize that 
imperialism’s most significant shift in emphasis is in an entirely 
different direction – toward the transformation of its own core 
processes of surplus-value extraction through the global labor 
arbitrage-driven [i.e., by super-exploitation] globalization of 
production, a phenomenon that is entirely internal to the 
labor-capital relation.” Yes, my comments were grumpy. I grump 
especially at reformist institutions that inappropriately appropriate 
Luxemburg’s revolutionary good name. But my main point was to grump at 
theorists (Harvey and Wolff) who suggest that the center of 
imperialism has moved South, or that it is the oppressed countries in 
the global South that extract surplus-value from the imperialist 
countries in the global North. Those fictions turn the real 
imperialist globe upside down. Walter


Look, I'm rushed now, but I think is an ungenerous, indeed uncomradely 
reading of Harvey - and I really doubt he'd agree that "the center of 
imperialism has moved South" (though it is unevenly developing, as the 
rise of the sub-imperialist BRICS shows).


Full respect to MR for advancing the debate - and my two cents on how 
Africa looks in this context is here: 
https://monthlyreview.org/2017/09/01/africa-rising-in-retreat/ - but it 
would have been better for Smith (and you, Walter), to seriously 
consider what the Harvey/Smith approach to uneven development looks like 
as it has developed over the past 50 years or so since Harvey first 
start confronting extreme uneven urban development in Baltimore. 
Otherwise you risk caricature.


More soon...

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Rosa Luxemburg's 'The Accumulation of Capital', , 100 years on

[Walter Daum via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Hi Patrick, Of course I agree that the three “grabs” you mention occur, 
and that they are crucial for capitalist production. But I don’t agree 
that they are, in today’s conditions, non-capitalist. They are part of 
how capitalist economy works; they exist in addition to the direct 
extraction of surplus-value in the sphere of production. Luxemburg held 
that capitalism required not just the grabbing of extra surplus-value 
outside the production sphere – it needed to loot by force 
non-capitalist *modes of production.* The Marikana massacre was the 
forcible suppression of a strike within capitalist production, a strike 
by proletarian miners whose labor was super-exploited by capitalists. 
Luxemburg’s scheme doesn’t apply here. As John Smith said in the post 
that triggered this discussion: “Harvey is right to draw attention to 
the continuing and even increasing importance of old and new forms of 
accumulation by dispossession, but he does not recognize that 
imperialism’s most significant shift in emphasis is in an entirely 
different direction – toward the transformation of its own core 
processes of surplus-value extraction through the global labor 
arbitrage-driven [i.e., by super-exploitation] globalization of 
production, a phenomenon that is entirely internal to the labor-capital 
relation.” Yes, my comments were grumpy. I grump especially at reformist 
institutions that inappropriately appropriate Luxemburg’s revolutionary 
good name. But my main point was to grump at theorists (Harvey and 
Wolff) who suggest that the center of imperialism has moved South, or 
that it is the oppressed countries in the global South that extract 
surplus-value from the imperialist countries in the global North. Those 
fictions turn the real imperialist globe upside down. Walter On Tue, 5 
Sep 2017 17:09:06 +0200 Patrick Bond  wrote: There 
are questions in this (exceedingly grumpy) review posed to me, so I sent 
back this quick answer to Walter Daum:


Walter: [Bond] repeatedly quotes her statements to the effect that
?capital cannot accumulate without the aid of non-capitalist relations.?
But the main examples he provides are those of extractive industries
that strip the continent of minerals, and he vividly describes the
infamous massacre of platinum miners at Marikana in 2012. How is this an
example of ?super-exploitative relations between capitalist and
non-capitalist spheres? being confirmed in Africa today?

My reply: The super-exploitation of the non-capitalist sphere entails:
1) land grabs of the soil above which the minerals are found;
2) nature grabs of the minerals themselves;
3) grabs of the social reproduction of labour power in the form of
super-exploited women suffering the conditions of migrant labour in
neo-apartheid SA (more athttp://womin.org.za)

Sorry I didn't make that clear, but you'd agree?

Cheers,
Patrick

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Rosa Luxemburg's 'The Accumulation of Capital', 100 years on

[DW via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

In case any one actually wants to read what she wrote:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1913/accumulation-capital/index.htm


David Walters
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] Rosa Luxemburg's 'The Accumulation of Capital', 100 years on

[Patrick Bond via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

On 2017/09/05 11:01 AM, Philip Ferguson via Marxism wrote:

https://rdln.wordpress.com/2017/09/05/rosa-remixed-up-100-years-after-the-accumulation-of-capital/


There are questions in this (exceedingly grumpy) review posed to me, so 
I sent back this quick answer to Walter Daum:


Walter: [Bond] repeatedly quotes her statements to the effect that 
“capital cannot accumulate without the aid of non-capitalist relations.” 
But the main examples he provides are those of extractive industries 
that strip the continent of minerals, and he vividly describes the 
infamous massacre of platinum miners at Marikana in 2012. How is this an 
example of “super-exploitative relations between capitalist and 
non-capitalist spheres” being confirmed in Africa today?


My reply: The super-exploitation of the non-capitalist sphere entails:
1) land grabs of the soil above which the minerals are found;
2) nature grabs of the minerals themselves;
3) grabs of the social reproduction of labour power in the form of 
super-exploited women suffering the conditions of migrant labour in 
neo-apartheid SA (more at http://womin.org.za)


Sorry I didn't make that clear, but you'd agree?

Cheers,
Patrick


_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com