[ show plain text ]
Yes, in the sense that there was commodity production and money before
capitalism, for example in ancient Greece and Rome. I'm not arguing that we
should view these societies as having a "simple commodity mode of
production", since commodity production was not the primary organization of
economic life, nor the central source of economic surplus.
I hope all goes well with you, and that our paths cross soon.
All the best,
>On Thu, 11 May 2000, Michael Williams wrote:
>> Duncan continues:
>> > For my part, count me out of Fred's "growing consensus". I think Marx
>> > properly saw the commodity and money as historically prior to the full
>> > development of capitalist social relations of production.
>> And it seems to me that this statement begs all the tricky issues at stake
>> 1. Of course fully-featured 'capitalism' did not leap onto the world stage
>> from nothing. Inter alia, embryonic forms of money and commodity developed
>> along with much else, including various forms of markets.
>> 2. Further, we do not need the authority of Marx to accept the historical
>> commonplace that various forms of commodities and of money existed even
>> prior to capitalist pre-history. But my take is that none of these phenomena
>> constituted anything like a commodity *system* in which it is meaningful to
>> talk of such things as, for example 'abstract labour'.
>> 3. If we then take the next step (that I know that many will not wish to
>> take) that postulates that adequate characterisation of social categories
>> involves locating them in their systemic interconnections, then capitalist
>> commodities and money will be taken as categorically different from
>> pre-capitalist commodities and money. More pragmatically a pre-capitalist
>> commodity, for example, may share with a capitalist commodity *some*
>> characterisitcs, for example that it is sold on a market. It may even
>> as if they are both *produced with a view* to being sold on a market, though
>> I would submit that 'produced with a view too' would have a significantly
>> different resonance in each case.
>> 4. Back to the thread: My understanding of the first part of Capital is that
>> the theoretical object is not some notional or historical simple commodity
>> producing system, but indeed a capitalist system in which the question of
>> capital and labour markets have been temporarily bracketed to allow the
>> development of a conceptualisation of commodity, value and the beginnings of
>> a conceptualisation of money.
>I of course agree with Michael here. Clearly, Marx " saw the commodity
>and money as historically prior to the full development of capitalist
>social relations of production." But this is a separate question from
>the precise specification of the commodity in Chapter 1.
>Duncan, are you arguing that the commodity in Chapter 1 is product of
>a historically prior simple commodity production?
Duncan K. Foley
Leo Model Professor
Department of Economics
New School University
65 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EDT