From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU)
Date: Wed May 14 2003 - 11:17:05 EDT
Back on 3/13/03 Ian wrote: >From: "Ian Wright" <ian_paul_wright@hotmail.com> > There are many models that contain >specialisation and interdependence without classes (e.g. >Debreu's theory of value, Marx's discussion in Capital prior to the >introduction of capitalists and workers, any organisational model >of a firm etc.) I have every intention of studying models with >classes, but you've got to start somewhere. > >All the best, > >-Ian. Dear Ian, I am glad that you have joined the list. Welcome. I am interested in what you make of this point raised by GA Cohen. "In simple commodity production the produers are self employed market exchangers. They are not free labourers, since they own their own means of production. Yet could they not produce for the sake of accumulating capital? It is irrevlevant here that simple commodity production has never in fact characterized an entire economy. What does matter is that if it were general and, moreover, oriented to the expansion of exchange-value, then it would rapidly transform itself into capitalist commodity production. In the competition between producers, some would prosper and others would fail, and be reduced to labouring for the successful ones. This is just what tends to happen where simple commodity production in fact obtains. A 'process of social differentiation [Dobb] slices the set of commodity producers into a rudimentary bourgeoisie and a rudimentary proletariat." From KM's Theory of History: A Defense, p. 186 Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 20 2003 - 00:00:01 EDT