Re: [OPE] Odyssey and the Peruvian treasure

Cartesian-type
categorical system of Marxist dogmatics

 
You use realy very big words. But I am not sure whether you understand what you say. May I ask you to explore on the statement above a bit more please.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jurriaan Bendien <adsl675281@tiscali.nl>
To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
Sent: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:33
Subject: Re: [OPE] Odyssey and the Peruvian treasure

Jerry, unfortunately because you operate a Cartesian-type
categorical system of Marxist dogmatics a bit similar to the Vatican, you are
unable to "think outside the box", i.e. you are unable to think outside
categories which you hold to be absolute and eternally?true, analogous to
mathematical propositions such as 2+2=4. This is why I recommend a study of real
history, to get you out of that metaphysical, theocratic?mode.

?

In no way, ?do I conflate "product" with "commodity"
- rather I define very sharply and explicitly?what the differences between
them are, and in what ways the one presupposes the other, and the transitions
from product to commodity. How you can fail to understand it, beats
me.?Honestly you?wouldn't last very long at a Dutch
university.

?

I make?my viewpoint?absolutely clear, that just
because a product of labour effort has value, this does not make it ipso
facto?a commodity, and that for a product to be a commodity, it is?not
a requirement?that it was originally intended for market sale, merely
surplus to current?requirements, or not preferred for consumption by the
producer etc. I also explain in detail the reasoning behind this with reference
to Marx's analysis of the development of the forms of value.

?

The "production of commodities only by means of
commodities" characteristic of the specifically capitalist mode of
production?is merely the most advanced form of commodity production, in
which case, products cannot exist at all in any other way, than as commodities -
the value relation is intrinsic to their very inception. The point however is that this social condition (effectively, the
production of capital by means of capital)?doesn't apply to most of human
history, even if wares were happily traded on a regular basis in urban markets,
for aeons, all the same. In the Grundrisse, Marx similarly notes how commercial
development shapes up the notions of use-value and exchange-value, how their
forms evolve.

?

Apparently this dispute is strictly an obscure,
irrelevant?controversy in Marxist dogmatics, but in fact it has strong
implications for socialist economics, since, lacking any adequate understanding
of trading processes,?these type of Marxists?are unable to
conceive?how and under what conditions socialist economic relations could
replace them. So the super-revolutionary ultraleftists in this respect achieve
precisely the opposite of what they claim to aim for.

?

Jurriaan?

?

?

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope

________________________________________________________________________
AOL Email goes Mobile! You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the move. Sign up for a free AOL Email account with unlimited storage today.

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Wed Feb 11 09:42:06 2009