From: Gerald A. Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Wed Sep 08 2004 - 12:15:19 EDT
Jurriaan, replying to Andrew T, wrote: > Simple commodity production of itself > implies nothing about class relations, and already existed historically > prior to forms of society divided and stratified into social classes (i.e. > also in tribal and early communal societies). As a historical matter, I believe that the above is mistaken. I.e. commodity production did _not_ exist prior to the advent of class societies. This does not require a particular interpretation of Marx on the meaning of 'commodity'. Rather, if we simply take the more commonly used definition (a product which is produced in order to be sold) we can see that the emergence of the commodity required the development of money and markets which did not exist in pre-class societies. I believe that the conceptual problem arises here because Jurriaan has conflated 'product' with 'commodity'. Thus, he wrote: > (1) where the producer creates a product for direct barter with his own > work (or with his family or tribe), to obtain other goods and services. In these societies where there was barter there was clearly production but this does not mean that there was _commodity_ production since the latter presupposes the advent of _monetary_ exchange and markets. Jurriaan anticipates this criticism when he writes: > You might object as regards to (1) that production for barter isn't > commodity production at all, but bartered goods can have a use-value and > an exchange-value like any other commodity, and if that wasn't the case, > modern "counter-trade" could not take place at all (for more information > on the real scope of counter-trade, also known as offset-trade, see my > PEN-L post called "World money, countertrade and exchange relations", > 22 February 2004). To begin with, bringing in 'counter-trade' etc. only obscures the issue since we are not concerned here with the role of barter under capitalism but rather the nature of barter in pre-capitalist *non-class* societies prior to the emergence of money, trade, and markets. Within that historical context, barter was not the same as commodity exchange. (Indeed, I should note parenthetically, that individual acts of barter do not even require the exchange of labor _products_ since objects which are not produced can be bartered). The irony here is that Jurriaan has insisted on a particular interpretation of 'commodity' because it makes from his perspective the most sense historically, yet if we accept his interpretation then virtually all pre-capitalist production becomes commodity production, virtually all barter becomes commodity exchange, virtually all products become commodities, and the 'commodity' then appears as natural and eternal rather than a reality that was brought about by a historical process and thru _class_ struggle. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 09 2004 - 00:00:02 EDT