[ show plain text ]
> thought of in terms of the point of the two exchanges. In the first C-M,
> the C as an individual has no interest for the exchanger who is
> endeavouring to gain money (which as universal value itself exchanges
> against all commodities); what interests him from this point of view is
> merely that the C be some particularisation of the universal. In the second
> exchange M-C, by contrast, the point is to secure, not just any C but the
> one whose individual characteristics will satisfy a certain need.
Chris, this rather interesting formulation raises not a few questions: if
we move beyond the idea here of commodity circulation among indepedent
producers and think instead of the first C as labor power, exchanged
for a money wage that then allows the worker to meet certain needs, can we
still explain this circuit in the terms of the Hegelian syllogism as you
have described it? Does this suggest that the worker is less
interested in the individual qualities of her own thingified human
capacities than the commodity-things she ends up buying with her money
wage? Does this suggest the thingification of the human and the
humanization of things?
Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:59:42 EDT