From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Fri Sep 17 2004 - 02:45:40 EDT
--- Howard Engelskirchen <howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM> wrote: > I don't think the issue concerns a simple commodity > mode of production. It > concerns a social form which can account for the > production of commodities. > There's a difference. As I understand it this was > Rakesh's early point. > One important text supporting this reading occurs > toward the end of Chapter > 1 of Capital: > > MARX: "And for a *society based upon the production > of commodities* in > which the producers in general enter into social > relations with one another > by treating their products as commodities and > values, whereby they reeduce > their individual private labor to the standard of > homogeneous human labor -- > for such a society, Christianity . . . is the most > fitting form of religion. > In the ancient Asiatic and other ancient modes of > production, we find that > the conversion of products into commodities, and > therefore *the conversion > of men into producers of commodities*, holds a > subordinate place, which, > however, increases in importance as the primitive > communities approach > nearer and nearer to dissolution." (IP 83) > > What is interesting is that while the generalized > production of commodities > that characterizes capitalism is here directly > compared with pre-capitalist > forms where the production of commodities is a > subordinate form, the German > word used in the two places I've marked is the same: > "Gesellschaft von > Warenproduzenten"; "der Menschen als > Warenproduzenten." It is inconceivable > to me that Marx could have used the same word within > a dozen lines to refer > to two different scientific categories. > > Since references to the simple commodity form in > pre-capitalist forms are > not about free standing modes of production, Ajit's > point about mobility, I > think doesn't apply. Typically Marx explains that > only superfluous > production is taken to market in early forms of > exchange. ____________________ In this case the law of value has even harder time to work itself out. The exchange of commodities between two communities in this case would be exchange of exotic commodities and their exchange ratios would reflect all kinds of subjective and contingent factors. There is no reason to think that the two communities will have decent idea of what kind of labor and how much of labor goes into producing such commodities. Cheers, ajit sinha _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 18 2004 - 00:00:03 EDT