From: Paul Bullock (paulbullock@ebms-ltd.co.uk)
Date: Sun Dec 15 2002 - 17:13:41 EST
Dear Jerry, Impossible for me not to note this will therefore mean that our discussion about the state , 5248, 5250, 5272, and especially your 5274, and my closure in 5280. (all over your general reluctance to accept state industries as 'capitalistic' ) is now further resolved more clearly along the lines I was consistently suggesting. Happy New Year Paul B. ----- Original Message ----- From: "gerald_a_levy" <gerald_a_levy@msn.com> To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 3:57 PM Subject: [OPE-L:8174] Re: Marx's Notes on Wagner available on MIA > To answer one of my own questions in [8173], > the translation in the MIA for: > > > 'WHERE THE > > STATE ITSELF IS A CAPITALIST PRODUCER, AS IN THE > > EXPLOITATION OF MINES, WOODLAND, ETC., ITS PRODUCT IS > > A "COMMODITY" AND HAS THEREFORE THE SPECIFIC NATURE > > OF EVERY OTHER COMMODITY['] (MEW, 19:370) (emphasis, i.e. > > capitalization added, JL). > > is: "Where the state itself is a capitalist producer, as in the > exploitation of mines, forests, etc., its product is a "commodity" and > hence possesses the specific character of every other commodity". > The two translations are thus essentially consistent. > > In solidarity, Jerry > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 18 2002 - 00:00:01 EST