[ show plain text ]
My apologies. I think I just inadvertently sent a blank message.
Also, I was wondering about a qualification to my explication of
Banaji. I gave his second starting point as:
> (2) The 'value-form'; or its 'concrete historical synonym', the
> 'commodity-form'.
I am wondering whether it would be more accurate to say that Banaji
sees *value*, rather than the 'value-form', as the starting point whose
concrete historical synonym is the commodity-form. I wouldn't have
mentioned this, without first checking up on Banaji, but then I
inadvertently hit the send button on a blank message.
Sorry again,
Andy
From: "Andrew Brown" <A.N.Brown@uel.ac.uk>
Organization: University of East London
To: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
Date sent: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:57:46 GMT0BST
Subject: [OPE-L:2867] Re: re:starting points
Priority: normal
Send reply to: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu
> Dear all,
>
> Thanks very much to Nicky for her lucid post. One point:
>
> Banaji's 1979 chapter, recently drawn upon by Chris Arthur, and
> others, suggests that there are *three* starting points for Capital
> (depending on how you look at it).
>
> (1) The 'commodity'. This is the commodity in its 'immediate being'
> ('Schein' - [I wish read German]). The commodity as it appears on
> the surface of society; not yet 'posited' as a moment of capital. This is
> literally where Marx starts from, on the first page of the first chapter.
>
> (2) The 'value-form'; or its 'concrete historical synonym', the
> 'commodity-form'. Note carefully that Banaji has distinguished
> between the 'commodity' and the 'commodity-form'. It is this
> distinction which he suggests '990f commentators' have failed to
> recognise. This I think Banaji calls the 'abstract essence' of capital. It
> is the commodity now comprehended as (positing itself as) a form of
> value. Value itself is comprehended as congealed abstract socially
> necessary labour. [I may be putting my own gloss on Banaji here,
> regarding the notion of 'congelation']
>
> (3) 'Capital'. This is the most abstract notion of capital. It is the result
> of the derivation from the commodity and money forms. It is a notion
> that must itself be developed dialectically. It is the notion that Nicky
> has in mind as the starting point I think. [Banaji mentions stuff on
> 'essence' and 'ground' in Hegel also - I can't remember the details]
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Andy.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:59:44 EDT