Paul M
------
The general point was obviously not the absence of commodities and
money in precapitalist systems, but the difference in function. The
missing element is the function of money as capital, which spelled
the non-universal character of money and the non-commodity character
of most goods.
Paul C
------
I think that we can pretty well all agree on this. It is the
conclusion that we draw from it that differs. I draw the conclusion
that since the transformation of money into capital does not
get dealt with until part II of Capital I, then all the preceeding
analysis in Part I, including the category abstract labour,
must apply to societies where the function of money as capital
is either absent or poorly developed.