[Marxism] Capitalists, not bourgeois

rrubinelli rrubinelli at earthlink.net
Mon Oct 24 17:39:29 MDT 2005


  Nestor states:

"What really matters with these capitalist -but not bourgeois- ruling 
classes is that they do _not_ need to enlarge ths scale of production 
as a condition for the system (and their benefits) to exist. " 

So we have a capital, and capitalists that don't need to expand, to engage
in an expanded reproduction in order to survive?  But that, that critical and
perpetual, need for expansion, is the signature mark of capitalism, the dis-
tinguishing characteristic determined by its need to aggrandize labor through
its expulsion from the production process.  


Systems of slavery, plantations, encomienda, hacienda, organizations of rural
production do not exhibit that need because they never contain nor can create the
fundamental separation, the fundamental social relation of capital. And in that 
critical lack, slavery, hacienda, plantation systems act as a drag, a brake, on the
internal development of capitalism, on the development of the home market.

I did not say there were NO national fronts in the past-- there certainly were and
I pointed to the fronts of 1848/1849-- but the Republican Party was no such front.

rr


-----Original Message-----
From: Nestor Gorojovsky <nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar>
Sent: Oct 24, 2005 4:43 PM
To: marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
Subject: [Marxism] Capitalists, not bourgeois






More information about the Marxism mailing list