> 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.
Jurriaan:
I leave it to others to read what you wrote ("my view is that products possess the attribute of
value simply and minimally because it takes human labor to produce them and have that
value irrespective of whether they currently happen to be traded and irrespective of whether
they happen to be traded or not") and decide for themselves whether there was a
conflation of 'product' and 'commodity'. What you view as "simply and minimally" the
case means (as much as I know in advance that you are going to deny it) that *value is
natural and eternal*: for so long as human beings have existed, it has taken human labor
to produce products, has it not? I suppose your perspective might find some support among very
conservative anthropologists and economic historians - as well as theologians. More
critical - and less ideological - anthropologists and historians would not take that view.
In solidarity, Jerry
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Wed Feb 11 10:13:26 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 24 2009 - 20:30:37 EDT