[ show plain text ]
Fred B. Moseley wrote:
> 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.
___________________
Fred, where is it already explained? Is it that your consensus has already
established and no body has any right to question it? As far as I'm concerned, non
of your claims are already explained. If the core of capitalism is "surplus value",
then where do you find "surplus value" in chapter one? Let me ask you a simple
question again, and please don't give me the answer that "it is already explained".
Is capital-labor relation a commodity relation in Marx's CAPITAL?
____________
> > 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.
________
Why not 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).
________________
Can we please have some explanation other than "as already explained" from now on?
Cheers, ajit sinha
>
>
> Comradely,
> Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EDT