[ show plain text ]
Re Rakesh's [OPE-L:3067]:
> Since Smith thought commodity production was necessary for the
> division of labor <snip>
What is the source for this claim? By my reading, the division of labor
can precede commodity production in Smith (and Marx).
In another post you defined commodities as objects produced in order
to be sold. In this post you regress still further by claiming that
commodities are "objects with exchange value". By that definition,
commodities don't even have to be produced. Are you claiming that
this was Smith's perspective or is it your own?
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:08 EDT