From: dogangoecmen@aol.com
Date: Thu Apr 03 2008 - 06:15:26 EDT
Dogan ----- The production of commodity requires already division of labour, i.e. the separation of labour from the means of production. Paul ---- Not at all. Surely as a Smith scholar you can see that Smith recognised the division of labour but did not consider that this entailed the separation of labour from the means of production -- indeed practical experience of the 18th century economy would have made that idea seem absurd. Marx ===== To all the different varieties of values in use there correspond as many different kinds of useful labour, classified according to the order, genus, species, and variety to which they belong in the social division of labour. This division of labour is a necessary condition for the production of commodities, but it does not follow, conversely, that the production of commodities is a necessary condition for the division of labour. In the primitive Indian community there is social division of labour, without production of commodities. Or, to take an example nearer home, in every factory the labour is divided according to a system, but this division is not brought about by the operatives mutually exchanging their individual products. Only such products can become commodities with regard to each other, as result from different kinds of labour, each kind being carried on independently and for the account of private individuals. (vol1, ch. 1, sec. 2) ________________________________________________________________________ Bei AOL gibt's jetzt kostenlos eMail f?r alle. Klicken Sie auf AOL.de um heraus zu finden, was es sonst noch kostenlos bei AOL gibt. _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 30 2008 - 00:00:18 EDT