[OPE-L:589] Re: abstract labor -Reply -Reply -Reply

MATTICK@adlibv.adelphi.edu (MATTICK@adlibv.adelphi.edu)
Wed, 29 Nov 1995 07:12:19 -0800

[ show plain text ]

Re 572: The conclusion drawn is a non sequitur. Capital is present in
Marx's text from the first sentence of Ch. 1; after it is explicitly
developed as a theoretical category, Marx observes that the
generalized commodity production that is his starting point
p[resupposes capitalism. The historical existence of commodity
exchange in the absaence of capital has nothing to do with Marx's
presentation of the category of commodity before the category of
capital. Remember that his book is a critique of political economy.
The argument has the form: Capitalism appears (to economists) to be
describable as a market society. So let us develop the mechanics of
markets. We still will not be able to explain the origin of
surplus-value! So a new, non-economic vocabulary (of social power
relations) is necessary ...

Paulo M.