Holloway - Crack Capitalism.pdf - Libcom

labour, on the one hand, and a critique of labour in capitalism, on the
other' (1996: 5). What Postone does not make clear is where the critique
of labour is coming from: the other side is missing from his analysis. See
below (thesis 25, note 4) for a closer discussion of Postone.
7. It is wrong to think of analyses focused on the first chapter of Capital as
being necessarily centred on circulation (see Hanloser and Reitter 2008)
since that is where the dual nature of labour is introduced. The issue here
is the crucial distinction between value analysis and an analysis centred on
the dual nature of labour.
8. On the question of definition, see Holloway (2002/2005: Ch. 4).
9. See Krisis Gruppe (1999/2004: 16, s.6): 'The political left has always eagerly
venerated labour. It has stylised labour to be the true nature of a human
being and mystified it into the supposed counter-principle of capital. Not
labour was regarded as a scandal, but its exploitation by capital. As a result,
the programme of all "working class parties" was always the "liberation
of labour" and not "liberation from labour". Yet the social opposition
of capital and labour is only the opposition of different (albeit unequally
powerful) interests within the capitalist end-in-itself.'
10. For an excellent critique of the structural functionalism that characterises
so much of recent Marxist literature, see Clarke (1977/1991).
11. Living in Latin America, it is impossible to forget this even for a moment.
In this, I have learned much from my Guatemalan friends and colleagues,
Sergio Tischler and Carlos Figueroa.
12. On the concept of the 'other labour movement', see Roth (1974).
THESIS 23
1. As Werner Bonefeld (2009a: 77) puts it, in reply to the argument that
Marx thought of primitive accumulation simply as the past transition to
capitalism, 'Whether Marx really never referred to primitive accumulation
other than in terms of transition, is of little interest in my view. If he really
did not, then clearly he should have.'
2. On the consequences of this, see Davis (2006).
3. It is sometimes argued that primitive accumulation still exists, but only in
the expansion of capital accumulation to new areas: in other words, that
in modern capitalism there is a coexistence between normal accumulation
and primitive accumulation (in this sense, see De Angelis 2007 (especially
Ch. 10), and, from another direction, Harvey 2003). The argument here
is that no such distinction can be made (in the same sense, see Bonefeld
2009b and 2009c).
4. There is a lively debate on the present importance of primitive accumulation:
on this see the articles first published in the online journal, The Commoner,
and now united in Bonefeld (2009a), and also Harvey (2003). What is
crucial is to understand that primitive accumulation in the present is not
a marginal aspect of capitalism but simply the constant constitution and
reconstitution of capital.
5. On form as form-process, see Holloway (1980/1991 and 200212005).
6. This book might be said to be doubly eriugenic.
280