Re Duncan's [OPE-L:5136]:
> Well, you could have an economy in which there were lots of
> qualitatively different commodities as use values but in which they
> all shared the same conditions of production (turnover times, inputs
> other commodities and labor). This would look like a one-commodity
> economy analytically, but it would be a valid special case of a
> multi-commodity economy.
It might "look like" a one-commodity model or
illustration but as you recognize above it would _be_
a multi-commodity (perhaps n-sector) model or
illustration. In any event, one has to ask: what is
gained and what is lost in an illustration of a
capitalist economy where all (n) commodities require
the same technical conditions of production?
I also note that the "technical conditions of production"
(and reproduction) of labour power can not be the
same as that of other commodities ("... not by bread
alone"). Indeed, I think that the "turnover
time" of the commodity labor power (how long it takes
to produce and reproduce that commodity) can not be
the same as that of all other commodities. I'm not
really sure how the "labor input" for the commodity
labor power can also be the same as all of the other
commodities.
Re following:
Furthermore, what kind of "money commodity" is
possible in this context? Can it for example serve as
hoard? Yet, what happens to the value of corn after an
extended period of being stored?
It is important to remember that both labor power and
the money commodity are *unique* commoditities in
Marx's system. The reason for the uniqueness is not
simply the difering use-value of these commodities
(although that is important as well).
In solidarity, Jerry
You couldn't address problems of the
> equalization of the rate of profit in this economy, but you could
> address other problems, including monetary ones, since the money
> commodity could be one of the commodities.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:28 EDT