[OPE-L:7214] [OPE-L:738] Re: Re: Re: Thought experiment on exchange

Gerald Levy (glevy@pratt.edu)
Wed, 24 Mar 1999 01:24:00 -0500 (EST)

Gil wrote in [OPE-L:730]:

> That means <snip>
> that according to your reading of Chapter 1, Marx's conclusion follows
> because it was assumed in the first place, and not because of any
> "equalizing" properties of exchange. Marx's entire reference to the
> properties of exchange is, by this reading, redundant and a red herring.

1. It is necessary, and legitimate (given the subject matter at hand), to
examine commodities before non-commodities (e.g. unimproved land).

2. It is legitimate to consider products of wage-labor produced for
exchange under capitalist conditions at this stage of the analysis
since that is required to understand the subject matter of Volume 1
- Capitalist *Production*.

3. Understanding commodity production is required to grasp the essential
nature of capitalism. Understanding non-commodity production is
essential for grasping the essential nature of non-capitalist modes of

4. You seem to think that the subject of rent is a dodge when raised in
relation to this topic. It is not a dodge, rather it was the specific
way in which many of the anomalies that you have mentioned are analyzed
by Marx.

In solidarity, Jerry