Re: Which Marxism? (fwd) & my last with Mine.

> >> [Mine Aysen Doyran] i agree. SCP was a phase in the development of
capitalism, and marx
> >> predicted that it would "diminish", as it happened historically in
> >> western europe. SCP is an intermediary stage essential to capitalist
> >> development. Maurice Dobb suggests that, in this phase, the _relations
> of
> >> production_ may change whereas the _productive forces_ may retain their
> >> medieval charecter. however, this is a mode of production that is
> "already
> >> in a process of transformation into a capitalist one". This is a quote
> >> from IW's book (second volume)
>
> >SCP isn't an intermediary phase, and since 1550 it was capitalist in
> >nature,
> >from IWs view.
>
>
> first, i think that you are reading W incorrectly here. he is definetly
> aware of the intermediary stage of the kind i am talking about. plus,
> intermediary stage does NOT mean that SCP is non-capialist, it carries the
> _potential_ and internal dynamics to become so (unlike feudalism). so, i
> recommend you to read the above comment objectively.

[elson] Please suggest to us at least one page in any of IW's work that
indicates he beleives that the SCP form of labor is not a capitalist form,
or that it is an intermediary stage of the modern world-system.  You won't
find it.


> you know what elson? your logic sounds like the new leftist critics of
> marx who once argued that _socialism is nothing but another form of
> capitalism_. they bacame anti-marxist in the end.

New Left critics of Marx?  I get the impression from the above that you are
somewhat unfamiliar with the subject.  NL critics -- like EP Thompson,
Hilton, Shanin, Hobsbawm, Sartre, Fromm, Horkheimer (and the entire
Frankfurt School), Hindess and Hirst, Cardoso, Laclau, and so on -- are
those who REVIVED Marx from the moribund classical orthodox Marxism of the
Soviet Union, et al.

If by New Left you mean something else, it isn't clear.

>  if you refuse to
> see any qualitative changes among modes of productios, reifying them as
> capitalist, then i wonder what constitues non-capitalist in your
> terminology. or can you envision it?

I never brought up my own views on the subject.  You seem to forget two
things: one, that I'm explaining IW's views as I read them in contrast to
how you read them, and two, IW rejects the "modes of production" concept
(how many times does this need repeating?).

Anyway, I think I've contributed enough on this topic through our exchange.
Thank you, it was fun.