[OPE-L:2867] Re: re:starting points

From: Andrew Brown (A.N.Brown@uel.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Apr 18 2000 - 08:57:46 EDT

[ show plain text ]

Dear all,

Thanks very much to Nicky for her lucid post. One point:

Banaji's 1979 chapter, recently drawn upon by Chris Arthur, and
others, suggests that there are *three* starting points for Capital
(depending on how you look at it).

(1) The 'commodity'. This is the commodity in its 'immediate being'
('Schein' - [I wish read German]). The commodity as it appears on
the surface of society; not yet 'posited' as a moment of capital. This is
literally where Marx starts from, on the first page of the first chapter.

(2) The 'value-form'; or its 'concrete historical synonym', the
'commodity-form'. Note carefully that Banaji has distinguished
between the 'commodity' and the 'commodity-form'. It is this
distinction which he suggests '990f commentators' have failed to
recognise. This I think Banaji calls the 'abstract essence' of capital. It
is the commodity now comprehended as (positing itself as) a form of
value. Value itself is comprehended as congealed abstract socially
necessary labour. [I may be putting my own gloss on Banaji here,
regarding the notion of 'congelation']

(3) 'Capital'. This is the most abstract notion of capital. It is the result
of the derivation from the commodity and money forms. It is a notion
that must itself be developed dialectically. It is the notion that Nicky
has in mind as the starting point I think. [Banaji mentions stuff on
'essence' and 'ground' in Hegel also - I can't remember the details]

Many thanks,


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:59:44 EDT