| This question <8|54> overall <22|24> Oregon: <19|141>. |
| Question 13: Would it have been possible to start with a “common sense” definition of capitalism, such as, that capitalist production is production for profit? |
| [23] Oregon: -No. Marx analyzes so many different ways of capitalism that saying the quest for profit is a good definition to start out with would not be right. If one did however they would have to define mode of production, labor theory of value, the proletariat and the bourgeois all in the very next paragraph, which would not do him justice. When looking the the production for profit in your definition you would have to talk about the mode of production, the exploited worker, alienation, and thus derive your own definition. By taking all available aspects of what he is looking at then the definition of profit can be formulated to fit into capitalism. |
| Hans: Well, for Marx the quest for profits is a central characteristic of every kind of capitalism. You are saying that hone should not stop with the definition. That is right. But where should one start? You almost say capitalism is so complex that one cannot really make sense of it. Marx disagrees here. In his view, capitalism is a very specific animal, following some simple inner drives. |
| [23] Oregon: (datestring)Tue, 17 Jan 1995 16:21:09 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I don't know where it starts. Maybee with the desire for mass accumulation of wealth, which brings power. Profits is not the drive, but power. Profit is only the first step before power. Can one have power without profit? Or can one have profit without power? I think that when one has profit they posses power. And that what Marx gets at when he devises his pyramid of class stratification. With only the powerful at the top and the week at the bottom. The man or woman with the most wins in capitalism. Your either the owners of production or the means of production, or your nothing at all. This distinction is made by Karl, not by using profit, but by using class status that is derived by profit. Thus profit is a stepping stone for power and prestige, and that is where the debate of capitalism should start. Then look at the way prestige and power is formed i.e. profits. |
| Hans: This is indeed a simple and reasonable starting point. But Marx would not argue like this because he does not make the people responsible for the social structure they find themselves in. |
|
|
|||||