[ show plain text ]
Paul Zarembka wrote:
> Ajit Sinha <email@example.com> said, on 05/13/00 at 03:20 PM,
> replying to Fred:
> >>... 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."
> >> Marx did not analyze the commodity in Chapter 1 "independent of any
> >> specific historical mode of production."
> >Fred, the "simplest social form in which the labor-product is presented
> >in CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY" is the relation between the buyer and a seller
> >on equal footing. This relationship could exist independent of
> >capital-labor production relation. To a large extent I simply don't
> >understand what is the import of your question. As I have suggested that
> >Marx's logical point of beginning the argument with commodity relation
> >was to use it for analyzing the capital-labor relation as a relation
> >between the seller of a commodity 'labor-power' and the buyer of the
> >commodity the capitalist. My point has been that this strategy creates
> >problem for Marx's problematic of exploitation. ...
> "Contemporary society" IS a society with the capital--wage labor relation,
> not a society in which the buyer and seller "COULD exist independent of
> capital-labor production relation". Marx's passage is supportive of Fred
> rather than Ajit.
> Paul Z.
Paul, who is denying that the "contemporary society" means capitalist society.
However, the simplest social form in which the labor product is presented, is
the relationship between a buyer and a seller. This relationship could exist
independent of capital-labor relation. Cheers, ajit sinha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EDT