Forwarded from Nestor (esquemas de reproducción )

Louis Proyect lnp3 at SPAMpanix.com
Thu May 3 13:34:49 MDT 2001


Julio Huato makes me an undeserved honor when he states this:

"[Rosa Luxemburg] thought imperialist policies arose from something like
Nestor's 'full reproduction circle/deformed capitalism' theory"

This theory is not mine at all. I am humbly telescoping into a couple of
lines the theses outlined by Marx in _Capital_ when he explained that for
capitalism to exist there had to be a definite relation between the amount
of surplus value invested in Section I and in Section II of the economic
structure. Marx began with Quesnay´s ideas and the _Tableau economique_,
and developed them further in the sections of _Capital_ dealing with what
in Spanish is known as the "esquemas de reproducción" (don´t know how are
these "schemas of reproduction" known in English).

Lenin used this distinction to build his polemics against Russian populists
in _The development of capitalism in Russia_. He also made a highly
appreciative mention of this thesis, claiming that there was more science
in this discovery than in all bourgeois economy together.

Any form of capitalism that does not take this specific constitution is a
capitalism which can operate only as a sucking profit machine, profit that
is eventually realized in another formation. Thus, it is a form of
capitalism where the tendency of the rate of profit to fall does not appear
directly, because the structure displays no lower limit for wages but the
limit dictated by class struggles. Conversely, the secret disease of
capitalism, a disease that is built-in with the system, cannot be uprooted
in central economies, where wages cannot fall below a certain limit without
jeopardizing the whole building. In this sense, these forms of capitalism
are a powerful counter-tendency for the TRPF, and any departure from this
colonial status is a direct attack against CENTRAL capitalism. This
explains why semicolonial insurgency, and even the attempts to build a
self-centered capitalism, are so strongly opposed by the bourgeoisies at
the core. It is an ECONOMIC logics, the logics of the system itself, which
pits our poorest peasants against Mr. Rockefeller.

The idea that "capitalism" can revolutionize social relations without
establishing this concrete link between material production of goods
directed at the reproduction of means of production and the material
production of goods directed at the reproduction of direct human producers
is the kernel of any form of Marxism which, in one way or another,
dismisses "imperialism" as a _strictly economic_ phenomenon. In this sense,
it serves unconsciously the purposes of --Mr. Rockefeller. Julio speaks
Spanish fluently, so I would write down, for him, that "no hay que
confundir gordura con hinchazón"

Hugs,

Lic. Néstor M. Gorojovsky


Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org






More information about the Marxism mailing list