[ show plain text ]
Fred B. Moseley wrote:
> Now, on to David's two passages:
>
> > "The mode of production in which the product takes the form of a
> > commodity, or is produced directly for exchange, is the most general
> > and most embryonic form of bourgeois production. It therefore makes its
> > appearance at an early date in history. . ." (Vol. I, p. 82
> > [International, 1967]).
>
> This passage has a somewhat different translation in the Penguin edition:
>
> "As the commodity-form is the most GENERAL and the most
> UNDEVELOPED FORM OF BOURGEOIS PRODUCTION,
> it makes it appearance at an early date ..." (p. 176)
>
> And the continuation of that sentence is:
>
> "... though not in the same predominant and therefore
> characteristic manner as nowadays."
>
> In other words, commodities existed prior to capitalism, but the
> commodity-form Marx is analyzing in Chapter 1 is the "most general and
> undeveloped FORM OF BOURGEOIS PRODUCTION." I think this passage supports
> the "commodity-in-capitalism" interpretation of Chapter 1, not the simple
> commodity production interpretation.
__________________
I think it is too forced an interpretation. In combination with the passage I
had quoted from ch.6, I think, it leads to the conclusion that commodity and
commodity exchange could be analyzed independent of any specific historical
mode of production. Cheers, ajit sinha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:08 EDT