Re Duncan's [OPE-L:5136]: > Well, you could have an economy in which there were lots of > qualitatively different commodities as use values but in which they > all shared the same conditions of production (turnover times, inputs > other commodities and labor). This would look like a one-commodity > economy analytically, but it would be a valid special case of a > multi-commodity economy. It might "look like" a one-commodity model or illustration but as you recognize above it would _be_ a multi-commodity (perhaps n-sector) model or illustration. In any event, one has to ask: what is gained and what is lost in an illustration of a capitalist economy where all (n) commodities require the same technical conditions of production? I also note that the "technical conditions of production" (and reproduction) of labour power can not be the same as that of other commodities ("... not by bread alone"). Indeed, I think that the "turnover time" of the commodity labor power (how long it takes to produce and reproduce that commodity) can not be the same as that of all other commodities. I'm not really sure how the "labor input" for the commodity labor power can also be the same as all of the other commodities. Re following: Furthermore, what kind of "money commodity" is possible in this context? Can it for example serve as hoard? Yet, what happens to the value of corn after an extended period of being stored? It is important to remember that both labor power and the money commodity are *unique* commoditities in Marx's system. The reason for the uniqueness is not simply the difering use-value of these commodities (although that is important as well). In solidarity, Jerry You couldn't address problems of the > equalization of the rate of profit in this economy, but you could > address other problems, including monetary ones, since the money > commodity could be one of the commodities.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:28 EDT