[OPE-L:3150] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re:starting points

From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Fri May 12 2000 - 12:37:41 EDT

[ show plain text ]

On Tue, 9 May 2000, Ajit Sinha wrote:

> Fred, I think the problem is simply this, as David has correctly pointed out.
> The problematic of the 1st chapter is allocation of social labor, which is
> regulated by the "law of value". Here the concept of value has meaning only
> within the context of the problematic of allocation of labor regulated by the
> market. To declare this theoretical problematic the "'elementary form' of this
> concrete historical totality of capitalist production" amounts to identifying
> the core of capitalism with market and market relations.

As already explained, there is no shift in Marx's "problematic" from Part
1 to Part 2. Starting with the commodity does not identify the market as
the CORE of capitalism. The core of capitalism is surplus-value. But, as
already explained, in order to explain surplus-value (more money), Marx
first explained what money is and the necessary relation between money and

> Thus abolition of
> market becomes the slogan for socialist movement (commodity fetishism has
> nothing to do with surplus value production).

This obviously does not necessarily follow.

As you agree, the categories of
> wage labor and capital do not appear in the analysis here. Thus the
> of value in the first chapter of CAPITAL has nothing to do with capitalist
> exploitation.

As already explained in other posts, Part 1 has everything to do with
capitalist exploitation. It is Marx's necessary logical preliminary to
explaining capitalist exploitation (the transformation of money into more


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EDT