From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Wed Jan 19 2005 - 12:35:50 EST
> > I think the link is to money-capital as the form of capital in general. > Michael, > There are problems, I think, with the thesis that capital in general > can be represented synecdochically, especially as money capital. > This dovetails with the idea that capital can in general be abolished > through the abolition of interest or the euthansia of the rentier. I > would suggest that capital in general does not exist only as a > synecdoche but rather as a concrete individual. Rather, I think the position of Michael L (and Andy, who said that he agreed with him) dovetails with the idea that capital-in-general takes the commodity-form and, hence, the value-form and the money-form. This then dovetails with the idea that capital-in-general can be abolished through the abolition of value and commodity production and exchange (recalling, of course, that the class relations particular to capitalism are associated with the commodity-form). Doesn't that dovetail rather nicely with the position of Marx? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 21 2005 - 00:00:02 EST