From: Gerald A. Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Fri Apr 02 2004 - 19:59:28 EST
Hi Paul B. > The importance of the historical > development of the social form cannot be understated, the very > 'categories' are themselves maturing socially the more widely > spread is exchange, until the whole matter takes on a new > significance when commodities become capitalistically produced. If the historical development of the social form can not be understated, then you presumably are endorsing the 'logical-historical' interpretation of _Capital_ popularized by Meek (since he, perhaps more than any other author, stressed the historical dimension in the progression of Marx's categories)? > The 'cell form' is necessary for the existence > of capitalism, but in the form of a product it is not itself sufficient > to transform into capital, what is necessary for this is that labour > power itself be forced to take on the commodity form as well. The 'economic cell-form' is not a trans-historical 'commodity'. Indeed, the very sentence in which this is written begins "But for bourgeois society, the commodity-form ....". And 2 paragraphs on Marx again explicitly limits the scope of the work: "What I have to examine in this work is the capitalist mode of production, and the relations of production and forms of inter-course [Verkehrsverhaaltnisse] that correspond to it." The subject from the very beginning of Ch. 1 is thus capitalism and _this_ is what can not be understated since failure to comprehend this leads one to all sorts of erroneous interpretations, including the interpretation of the meaning of 'simple commodity production'. In any event, thanks for the response. The lines of demarcation in interpretation are now a bit clearer -- to me at least. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 06 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT