[ show plain text ]
On Tue, 9 May 2000, Ajit Sinha wrote:
>
> Fred, I think the problem is simply this, as David has correctly pointed out.
> The problematic of the 1st chapter is allocation of social labor, which is
> regulated by the "law of value". Here the concept of value has meaning only
> within the context of the problematic of allocation of labor regulated by the
> market. To declare this theoretical problematic the "'elementary form' of this
> concrete historical totality of capitalist production" amounts to identifying
> the core of capitalism with market and market relations.
As already explained, there is no shift in Marx's "problematic" from Part
1 to Part 2. Starting with the commodity does not identify the market as
the CORE of capitalism. The core of capitalism is surplus-value. But, as
already explained, in order to explain surplus-value (more money), Marx
first explained what money is and the necessary relation between money and
commodities.
> Thus abolition of
> market becomes the slogan for socialist movement (commodity fetishism has
> nothing to do with surplus value production).
This obviously does not necessarily follow.
As you agree, the categories of
> wage labor and capital do not appear in the analysis here. Thus the
problematic
> of value in the first chapter of CAPITAL has nothing to do with capitalist
> exploitation.
As already explained in other posts, Part 1 has everything to do with
capitalist exploitation. It is Marx's necessary logical preliminary to
explaining capitalist exploitation (the transformation of money into more
money).
Comradely,
Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EDT