Rebecca: Hi Andy!
Andy: One other thing. Merchant capital(ism) is independent enough in its
sphere
(circulation) to attach itself like a parasite onto all sorts of modes of
production. It has been historically argued that, unlike its relationship
with productive capital, where viewed by Marx from the standpoint of total
social capital reproduction it is a dependent and transitional form of
capital, in articulation with other modes of production it remains
external, thus tapping the commodities generated by precapitalist
exploitative relations, whatever these might be (and certainly this has a
bearing on the unequal exchange discussion). However, to the degree that
such external economic activity over time conditions and determines the
character of the precapitalist mode of production one must reconsider the
degree of externality of merchant capital to these modes of production. I
would argue that a considerable time ago, while this may have been true
initially, historically, it became inappropriate to conceptualize
commercial capital as external to precapitalist (or backward,
underdevelopment, etc.) modes of production. And there is the matter of
superficial "precapitalist" modes of production that developed internally
the capitalist economy, wherein merchant capital can be misconceived as
external.
Rebecca: Perhaps you miss the point I am making. If merchant capital exists
under condtions in which industrial capital is largely of a marginal or
sporadic nature how is it possible to for it then to accumulate as capital
given the equal exchange of values is a necesary if commodity production
and circulation is to develop. This being so how then is it possible for
merchant capital to accumulate as capital.
In short how is m-c-m' possible under conditions in which there is
generally no captalist production process? Where does the increment m',
surplus value originate from is equal exchange is be the rule rather than
the exception?
Warm regards
Rebecca