RE: Andre Gunder Frank & Marx

Remember, Marx argues (also in Capital I) that the
> shift from slave-labor to wage-labor is only a MERE change in appearance
> and is not, under a system based on the production and appropriation by
> private material interests of surplus-labor, fundamentally different,
> which they would be if Marx was making a modes of production argument,
> wherein it is the articulation of modes that is a key feature of the
> character of surplus production--Marx makes no such argument. Indeed, he
> emphasizes that the surplus-labor only appears more directly as unpaid
> labor under the slave mode of exploitation, as well as variable capital,
> since all labor is appropriated directly, in contrast to wage-labor where
> unpaid labor is distinguished through the monetary exchange of time and
> wages. Again, there is no fundamental difference. Marx clearly argues 
that
> chattel slavery in the US South was capitalist production, and, of 
course,
> it was.
>
> Andy Austin

However, this argument about "MERE" changes in appearance, also made by 
Wallerstein, is only one-half of Marx's point: to show that the other forms 
of production are fundamentally conditioned by the "specifically capitalist 
mode" (wage-labor/factory form of capital), are part of the circuit of 
capital, therefore  part of the world-economy (not feudalism) -- which is 
the point IW stresses against the "modes of production" people who, unlike 
Marx, see slavery etc. as not part of capitalism proper.  They misread 
Marx, as I think has  been clearly shown by IW.

The other half of Marx's point however, is not simply the necessary 
relation (via the single division of labor) among the forms.  It is rather 
that the wage-labor/factory form of capital is quite different than the 
other forms that it calls anew into a transformed existence "mere 
travesties" of their former selves.  This is spelled out in the 
Introduction to the Grundrisse quite nicely, and if I had a copy of it 
nearby, I'd quote it.  IW stops short of taking the next step, if because 
he is, as stated in his vol. I, interested in the entire structure, not the 
specific forms.  The outward appearance of the different forms (modes) is 
less important than their content with respect to entering into the 
circuits of the totality of the world-economy.  However, given that they 
are part of the world-economy, in terms of its actual historical 
development, the specificity of the various forms of capital is quite 
important, as Marx argues.

Hence, so much ink (the three volumes) were devoted to this form and its 
logical limitations.  Until such an analysis was sufficiently completed, 
the historical relation of the forms and historical development of the 
world-economy, could not be (and was not) fully understood and written 
about.  Indeed, it can only be  done in small manageable chunks due to the 
details that have to be investigated (archives, etc.).  I referred to 
Tomich's work as an example of how this can be done with a quite historical 
and sophisticated framework, one which shows, for instance, the "slave 
nature of capital, and the capitalist nature of slavery" while at the same 
time showing the local specificity of the world-economy and the 
world-historical nature of slavery and events.