![]() ![]() ![]() This rules out the eventual commodification of everything. Even at the most abstract level of analysis, capitalism demonstrably depends on an unstable balance between its value and non-value forms, on a changing balance between (re-)commodification and decommodification. This should not be mistaken for an endpoint towards which capitalism is ineluctably drawn (cf. Īttempts to valorize capital and contain class struggles in these conditions are the source of capitalism’s dynamism. It also magnifies the ‘historical and moral’ element in the price of labour-power and increases the scope of struggles over the social as well as private wage. For it shapes the forms of economic exploitation, the nature and stakes of class struggle between capital and labour in the labour process, and the competition among capitals to secure the most effective valorization of labour-power. This fundamentally affects the developmental dynamic of capitalism. Commodification of labour-power and its direct subsumption under capitalist control also make labour markets and the labour process alike sites of class struggle. These conditions enabled (but did not guarantee) the metamorphosis typical of capital - beginning with money capital, moving through the stages of productive capital and commercial capital, getting realized as profits in the form of money, and becoming available for fresh investment. This last result of commodification was reinforced when labour-power was directly subsumed under capitalist control through machine-pacing in the factory system. Only then did the sole source of value acquire a commodity form, economic exploitation acquire its distinctive capitalist mediation through exchange relations, and the disposition of labour-power fall directly under the sway of capitalist laws of value. But it was only when the commodity form was imposed on labour-power (often through bloody class struggles) that the self-valorization of capital became possible. Money and commodities were already presupposed, of course, in market exchange and petty commodity production. Marx found capitalism’s distinctive feature as a mode of production in the generalization of the commodity form to labour-power. Instead I discuss several major economic changes in contemporary capitalism, consider whether they involve a break in capitalist development, and suggest some medium-term implications for the national state and governance mechanisms. Accordingly I do not try to forecast the long-run future or ultimate destiny of capitalism. ![]() However, as these are not linked to any final telos, capitalist development remains open within very broad limits. I argue that it does, indeed, show important developmental tendencies. Thus I first consider whether capitalism has a distinctive dynamic and, if so, what this might mean for its future. Yet only by examining such issues can one usefully comment on the historical place, the direction, or destiny of capitalism or draw relevant political conclusions. Surprisingly, few papers at the conference explored the basic nature of capitalism, its genesis, overall dynamic, or future. Its final plenary session, to which my own contribution was presented, addressed the historical place and destiny of capitalism. The conference which inspired this collection was explicitly concerned with the direction of contemporary capitalism. ‘Capitalism and its future: remarks on regulation, government, and governance’, Review of International Political Economy, 4 (3), 435-455, 1997. This on-line version is the pre-copyedited, preprint version. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |