Re [OPE-L:5052]: > "I, for one, can see no meaning for a concept of > price in a one commodity world. I find it > incomprehensible." > (What if, in this same world, money is not a commodity?) In the context of an interpretation of Marx, even where is no money commodity (pace Akira and Claus), a one commodity world is indeed incomprehensible: If one is indeed talking about a "one commodity" world then one can not also hold that labour power is a commodity since that would mean that there are now two commodities rather than 1. And, I think the evidence is pretty clear that Marx believed that labour power becomes a commodity (even if it is a very special and unique commodity). Of course, one can challenge this idea that labour power is a commodity (as Mike W and others have done), but if we are still talking about interpretations of Marx, rather than Marxist perspectives, it must be recognized that his theory held that labour power is a commodity. Moreover, even in the context of a corn model, if that model claims to represent Marx's perspective, a "corn wage" can not be taken as a substitute for labour power itself. This is because labour power *itself* (understood here as the capacity, physical and mental, to perform labor) exists as a commodity. In other words, one can not conflate labour-power itself with the exchange-value of labour-power. In conclusion, combining the above with the explanation in [5050], a "one commodity world" is incomprehensible in the context of a discussion about Marx's perspectives: "immense accumulation of commodities" can not be reduced to a single "commodity" world without misrepresenting the theory. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:40 EST