[Marxism] Re. Question

Andrew Pollack acpollack2 at gmail.com
Tue Feb 5 12:44:04 MST 2013


Of course, you're right, "it can't be simply competition between
capitals that *in itself*
 provides the imperative to accumulation."

That's why I conjured up the imaginary aristocrat (or whomever, my
grasp on the transition is shaky).

Once class society was established, the ruling classes of each
successive mode of production had an ongoing desire and need to get
richer and richer and get more and more power repeat ad nauseum. How
they did so differed by mode of production. But in addition, within
each one were new embryonic ruling classes whose wealth was made
possible by new productive forces (technical change) which, to be
realized, required new relations of production. So the first
capitalists were not just competing with each other, but were also
wiping out or taking over the markets and workforces of the old ruling
class, and destroying social, political and cultural forces in their
way.

That's why it's not turtles.

Isn't this just ABC Marxism, however poorly and inaccurately I've expressed it?




More information about the Marxism mailing list