on 6 jun 96 korotaev wrote:
4. The "capital-accumulation" assumption of the WST looks for me as a much
more sound, much less shaky one. However, one doubts why the capital
accumulation should nessesarily imply exploitation. If we use with
Ekholm&Friedman "the word 'capital' to refer to the form of absract wealth
represented in the concrete form of metal or even money that can be
accumilated in itself and converted into other forms of wealth" (1993 /1982/:
68), why capital accumilation could not be conducted through the systematic
equal exchange of "other forms of wealth" and services in return for the
"abstract wealth"?
there is a part of the logic that i'm not understanding here . . . if
accumulation means having more of something at the end of the period than at
the beginning, and if 'abstract wealth' is being used in 'equal exchange' for
'other forms of wealth and services', how can capital accumulate in one of the
exchanging parts of the system
thanks in advance for the clarification and explanation
cheers,
craig
craig k harris
dept of sociology michigan state university east lansing michigan
48824-1111
tel: 517-355-5048 fax: 517-432-2856