[ show plain text ]
A key point in this debate about the domain of Commodity is whether the
'generalisation' of objects produced with a view to sale leaves those
objects essentially unchanged (in which case Commodity can usefully
categorise such objects both before and after generalisation) or not (in
which case we need separate concepts).
Since there seems to be some common ground that capitalism is (at least)
generalised commodity production, and, perhaps somewhat less but still some
common ground that Capitalism is a (dynamic) system (the conditions of
reproduction of which are of scientific interest), it seems not too great a
further step to suggest that the key categories of that system gain their
meaning, at least in important part, from their interconnections within it.
In which case Commodity under capitalism is a categorically different thing
than 'object produced for exchange' in earlier epochs. (Whether or not these
epochs are themselves systemic to the same degree as developed capitalism is
a moot point; but they are certainly something other than a Capitalist
system.)
More intuitively, it seems meaningful to say that the value of BMW 5 series
is some 70K times the value of a packet of peanuts, only because they are
both commodities entering into a generalised (capitalist) commodity
producing system (with all that entails). To my mind, it does not seem
meaningful to say that an ancient Egyptian pyramid was worth 1,000M pairs of
sandals (I'm making some of this up) made in an Egyptian village,
notwithstanding the tallying and accounting by the Pyramid builders, or the
fact that the sandals may have been sold to passing traders. The reason is
that in the latter case these objects do not enter anything approximating to
a universal system of commensuration, in the way that cars and snack food do
today.
Michael
____________________
Dr Michael Williams
Economics and Social Sciences
De Montfort University
Milton Keynes
MK7 6HP
UK
tel: +1908 834876
[Home: +1703 768641]
fax: 0870 133 1147
mike.williams@dmu.ac.uk <mailto:mike.williams@dmu.ac.uk>
http://www.mk.dmu.ac.uk/~mwilliam
[This message may be in html, and any attachments may be in MSWord 2000. If
you have difficulty reading either, please let me know.]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> [mailto:owner-ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu]On Behalf Of Gerald Levy
> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 3:05 AM
> To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> Subject: [OPE-L:2830] Re: relabeling commodities, value, and socialism
>
>
> Reply to Allin's [OPE-L:2829]:
>
> > Marx
> > says that the "division of a product into a useful thing and a
> > value [characteristic of the commodity] becomes practically
> > important, only when exchange has acquired such an extension
> > that useful articles are produced for the purpose of being
> > exchanged, and their character as value has therefore to be
> > taken into account, beforehand, during production" (Capital, I,
> > ch. 1 sect. 4).
>
> Marx also says at the beginning of that section that: "A commodity appears
> at first sight an extremely obvious, trivial thing. But its analysis
> brings out that it is a very strange thing, abounding in metaphysical
> subtleties and theological niceties". A comprehension of the "magical
> character of the commodity" as explained by the fetishism of the commodity
> is *certainly* a different understanding of the meaning of the term
> "commodity" than is generally used by economic historians -- who would
> indeed (mostly) view such a characterization as "idiosyncratic".
>
> In solidarity, Jerry
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:59:44 EDT