[OPE-L:3195] Re: Re: Re: Re: Simple Commodity Production

From: Paul Cockshott (clyder@gn.apc.org)
Date: Sun May 14 2000 - 18:36:02 EDT

[ show plain text ]

At 12:39 12/05/00 -0400 fred wrote:

>> I think it is too forced an interpretation. In combination with the
passage I
>> had quoted from ch.6, I think, it leads to the conclusion that commodity and
>> commodity exchange could be analyzed independent of any specific historical
>> mode of production. Cheers, ajit sinha
>Do other people think that this is too forced an interpretation,
>especially given all the other textual evidence to support this
>interpretation presented by me and others.

I think that it is too forced.

 And there are many more
>passages that could be presented in which Marx clearly states that the
>commodity he starts with is the product of capitalist production.
>Here is one more from "Notes on Wagner":
>"What I start out from is the simplest social form in which the
>labor-product is presented in CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY."

There is it seems to me a logical fallacy in your argument fred,
yes it is true that commodities are the form in which (most of ) the labour
product is represented in capitalist society. But they are also the
form in which part of the labour product is represented in
other societies.
Paul Cockshott (clyder@gn.apc.org)

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