[ show plain text ]
Jerry wrote [ope-l:2862]:
>
>This "metamorphosis" that leads to an explanation of the "mystery" behind
>M-C-M' begins with the commodity- and money-forms. That is, to be able to
>unravel the mysteries of the origins of surplus value and profit
>pre-supposes the prior presentation of these forms. Thus, Part One on
>"Commodities and Money" must logically precede a explanation for why M'>
>M in the formula M-C-M'.
Agreed. But the question I'm asking is whether Marx's 'commodity' is in
fact adequate (as a starting point) to the task he sets himself. Although
Marx develops his theory of Capitalism (and capitalist value/surplus value)
From the commodity form, the status (historical? transhistorical?) of the
'commodity' as he presents it in Chapter 1 is extremely ambiguous; as is
his treatment of the commodity forms (use-value and value) in the first two
sections.
If Capital has to do with capitalism, don't we need a concept of the
capitalist commodity?
comradely,
Nicky
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:59:44 EDT