I do think there is something there though around the original axiom of capital. Deterritorialised labour is exactly it’s separation from it’s conditions of life but this separation is pre-accomplished as far a capital is concerned. It’s part of its presuppositions. Although of course, as Massimo would remind us primitive accumulation is a continuous process. And (the other) David Harvey argues that primitive accumulation, which he calls accumulation by disposession, is the main contemporary form of accumulation. Still from within capitalism the violence of that process is seen as lying outside capitalism, as natural processes or as the product of other modes of accumulation. African’s are either savages, locked into corrupt tribal patterns or still under the sway of state socialism.

Despite that I think you are right that I’ve over fucussed on primitive accumulation when there are other means by which capital encounters what is in excess of it and incorporates it. That can be as fixed capital, Eg. capital embodied in, or clinging to, machines with the move from absolute to relative surplus value.

But I do think that the form of the original encounter has an effect so that Capital’s deterritorialising logic is primary over its territorialising logic and that this gets shown in times of crisis when additional axioms tend to get stripped away. Although they can then be new ones added latter to deal with that crisis, eg. Keynesianism

I think we have to be a little more careful when we talk about the origins of capital or what it is. Capital is both that encounter you mention and the separation of labour from its conditions of life that makes possible the (re)encounter: capital simultaneously deterritorialises and reterritorialises. And when capital encounters labour it is frequently territorialised, as are the workers: it is a factory or office, in a paricular location, containing specific machines or tools, thus requiring workers with particular skills and, to use modern language, subjectivities. But again you’re right that in times of crisis, capital attempts to escape these fixities, returning to its liquid form — which also helps us shed the beliefs tied to the fixed forms. “All that is solid melts into air” could describe the “private equity” deals that shift capitalist value from “productive” activities into financial capital in the form of US Treasury bills and their like… which then turn out to be practically worthless.

But this is why we have to be careful about saying that capital has any fundamental or foundational form. Money, for example, existed for centuries before capitalism became the dominant mode of production, just as there have been always been young humans, men and women, and so on.