Re: capitalism, market, redistribution

Jozsef Borocz wrote:

>Hm. I have never realized capitalism was a quantitative variable.
> ...
>we know that
>capitalism (the system in which appropriation of the surplus labor of
others
>is based on private ownership of the means of production) has nothing to do
>with this generic notion of markets per se, except for the current
>pro-status-quo ideology that promotes capitalism with the notion of "the
>market". This is not to defend markets: I loathe them as much as the next
>person. ;-) Give me a better, more humane, more just method of distributing
>value and I accept it.

Isn't part of the problem with this formulation, however, that capitalism
really consists of *both* market and non-market exchanges and that each is
essential to creating a system in which socially produced value may be
privately appropriated. Markets are a necessary component of capitalism, as
part of the cycle of M-C-M' markets allow for the "chance and caprice" of
price, profitability, and competition to determine allocations *to some
degree.* But Marx was equally emphatic that capitalism also depended upon
the organized, highly social production of factorys. It was the combined
labor of many workers, organized under the control of the capitalist within
a context of market forces that, in my reading of Marx, makes capitalism
unique. Neither markets, nor the despotic organization of production alone
makes for capitalism. Rather, it is the unique combination of the two in a
way that grants capitalists authority over functions that would clearly be
recognized as political in any other economic system, while depriving
workers of any formal rights over the product of their labor.

Given this formulation, I continue to wrestle with the question of whether
or not *markets* or *marketization* is a quantitative variable, even if
capitalism may not be. That is, if one of the master processes of capitalist
development is the increased commodification of social life, doesn't that,
by definition, point to the possibility of quantification? How else could we
measure an increase in commodification? And, yes, I am equating
commodification with the marketization of goods, services, whatever.

Finally, while you note that markets could survive the fall of capitalism,
could capitalism survive the fall of market? I remain beguiled by David
Harvey's assertion that "Capitalism cannot do without market co-ordination
and still remain capitalism. Centralization extends the sphere of controlled
production at the expense of exchange. If the sphere of operation of the
latter is cut back to the point where market co-ordinations are seriously
impaired, then the processes that allow values to be determined (see chapter
1) are rendered less effective and the operation of the law of value is
emasculated" (Limits to Capital, 1982: 141).

Though I realize that this more abstract question was not the point of your
post, I welcome your thoughts and the thoughts of the list on this.

Dag MacLeod
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Sociology
The Johns Hopkins University
dagmac@jhu.edu