From: Gerald A. Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Thu Sep 09 2004 - 20:19:29 EDT
Re: [OPE-L] (OPE-L) RE: the intellectual origins of 'sHi Rakesh. This thread is getting confusing: I began by asking about the intellectual origins of simple commodity production (scp) and the thread quickly evolved into a discussion of the concepts of scp and 'commodity' from a historical perspective. You raise other issues -- mostly about Marx: >>> Ok Marx may never have used the phrase simple commodity production. But didn't he distinguish between the capitalist circulation of commodities and the simple circulation of commodities, e.g. exchange of commodities by small craftsmen against the revenue of despots/lords or exchange of use values produced for feudal lords only in order to diversify their luxury consumption? Why not refer to the commodities circulated outside of capital as simple, i.e. non capitalist, commodity production? <<< The reason for the distinction between simple circulation and capitalist circulation of commodities was not to make a historical claim about what some (starting with Engels?) have called scp. Rather, the purpose was to explain capitalist circulation _by way of contrast_ to a simpler _concept_ (just as simple reproduction served as a means used by Marx to go on to explain expanded reproduction) and to pose the puzzle of surplus value (i.e., from whence did the 'prime' in M-C-M' originate?). You noted (former OPE-L member) Paul M's position on scp. What do you think about the argument advanced by Chris in The New Dialectic and Marx's Capital, p. 19-21 (beginning with the questions near the bottom of p. 19: "Does the model work conceptually? Could the law of value really obtain its 'classical form' at such a postulated stage of development of commodity exchange?") ? [I don't want to reproduce it here because it is quite an extended passage and I don't have the time now to reproduce it all. ] In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 11 2004 - 00:00:02 EDT