From: Dogan Goecmen (Dogangoecmen@AOL.COM)
Date: Sat Oct 21 2006 - 07:27:03 EDT
Hi Jerry, I agree with you. Since Marx's Capital (4 volumes) is about the contradictory nature of capital one has to read the whole work to have a complete picture of the issue. But I think the very nature of 'give me that and I will give this' is essentailly analysed in the first chapter. I have discussed the nature of the market and its relation to a more or less developed socialism. I agree with you that some elements of the market can be tolarated in a transitory period from capitalism to socialism. But in the long term market as such must be overcome because it is the negation of socialism. Fraternite, Dogan. In einer eMail vom 21.10.2006 13:11:35 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: Hi Dogan: If the issue is whether markets are part of the emancipatory mission of Utopian societies, I think one has to go _at least_ a few chapters _beyond_ Chapter 1 of Volume I of _Capital_. In the formula M - C - M' one can, for instance, see problems for such utopias: i.e. the outcome of 'market utopias' are different for different segments and hence there tends to be increasing differences in income and wealth distribution. Yet, surely, solidarity and equality are two of the hallmarks of Utopias, so the market produces outcomes which come into conflict with these socialist principles. This does not mean that markets can not be tolerated in socialist societies but that the dangers (of which there are many, including what mainstream economists call "market failures") have to be recognized and there have to be workable policies to ensure that emancipatory principles are preserved and reinforced. In solidarity, Jerry By 'market in itself' I mean that we can develop an objective understanding of market independently from what all sorts of ideologies say about and ascribe to it. I mean the question we have to pose is this: what is the nature of market. Based on this objective grasp we can then judge about these ideologies whether they are right or wrong. Market is an institution where humans get in touch with one another for a certain purpose: the exchange of commodities. That is to say that human relations on market are mediated by commodities - either directly or indirectly by means of money. So, the question what is the nature of market changes into the question what is the nature of commodity and money.The analysis of commodity and money must then be analysed in terms of human relation because commodities are being exchanged by human beings. These questions are profoundly posed and analysed, I think, in the first Chapter of the Capital of Marx. This is my reply to your two questions in short.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EST