Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Wed Oct 19 2005 - 21:18:04 EDT

sending again with more to the ps.

At 10:03 PM +0100 10/19/05, Philip Dunn wrote:
>Quoting Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU>:
>>  On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:49:34 -0700
>>  Not really because I am arguing that value is not an intrinsic
>>  property of commodities. To say that it is intrinsic to or inherent in
>>  or dispositional of commodities in themselves, i.e.
>>  outside the system of the relative and equivalent form relation,  is
>>  simply commodity fetishism.
>Surely to be a _commodity_ in itself is to be _inside_ the system of the
>relative and equivalent form relation.

An unsold commodity whose use value has dissipated simply failed to
gain entrance into that system--it never was a value; nor will it
ever be. Not sure about your point, Phil.

ps Michael, I think the quotes already provided by Grossmann answer
your challenges. I Hope to show this later, but am content at this
point to let Grossmann's argument stand for itself. And I don't see
what Pashukanis really added to Marx except application of commodity
logic analysis to equivalence in punishment (the objections from Hans
Kelsen and others that the ideals of punishment have been humanized
in the course of capitalist development does not ring true in
California, the prison and three strikes state). Materialist
understanding of the evolution of the law, the theory of the subject,
the critique of the state and the critique of Kantian morality seem
to me more than implicit in Marx's writings from the Critique of
Hegel's Philosophy of Right on. What Pashukanis did is what Grossmann
did--collect Marx's theoretical insights from different places and
simply compose them in a single place. It's not high art in either
case but it's a real theoretical service, nonetheless.

>Philip Dunn

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 20 2005 - 00:00:03 EDT