[OPE-L:2877] Re: Re: Re: re:starting points

From: nicola taylor (nmtaylor@carmen.murdoch.edu.au)
Date: Tue Apr 18 2000 - 13:50:48 EDT

[ show plain text ]

Andrew, thanks very much for bringing Banaji into the conversation. His
approach seems very useful, and I plan to respond to you after I've read
the article.

At 02:48 18/04/00 GMT0BST, you wrote:
>My apologies. I think I just inadvertently sent a blank message.
>Also, I was wondering about a qualification to my explication of
>Banaji. I gave his second starting point as:
>> (2) The 'value-form'; or its 'concrete historical synonym', the
>> 'commodity-form'.
>I am wondering whether it would be more accurate to say that Banaji
>sees *value*, rather than the 'value-form', as the starting point whose
>concrete historical synonym is the commodity-form. I wouldn't have
>mentioned this, without first checking up on Banaji, but then I
>inadvertently hit the send button on a blank message.
>Sorry again,
From: "Andrew Brown" <A.N.Brown@uel.ac.uk>
>Organization: University of East London
>To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
>Date sent: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:57:46 GMT0BST
>Subject: [OPE-L:2867] Re: re:starting points
>Priority: normal
>Send reply to: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
>> 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
>> 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,
>> Andy.

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