My answers to Jerry [1676] are as follows;
(1) simple commodity production: it is true that the simple commodity
production did never prevail in history but has been present since the
so-called commodity exchange commenced. Between peasants, between
handicraft producers, between serfs, they exchanged their own products
with each other, which is why money existed from quite a long time ago.
Those exchanges surely indicate the simple commodity production, and yet
the simple commodity production could not exist on their own but rather
under a certain other social relation of production. people exchanged
products in front of the cathedrals opening markets to the serive attendants.
in the mediaveal ages.
(2) national and international
Capital analysed a world economy. The world economy, however, did not refer
to the geographical world economy but the world of capitalism.
"the world market, which is not only the internal market in relation to all foreign markets existing outside it, but at the same time the internal market of all foreign markets as, in turn, components of the home markets" Grundrisse, p 280, penguin.
In the above, marx clearly did not include the foreign markets in the category
of the world market but the foreign markets as components of home markets were
included into the world market, which means the world of capitalist markets.
The globalized capitalist market, I think. The national and the international
economies are relevant to the category of money, national currencies, to the
category of the state (the nation state). Different national wage rates,
different rates of exploitation are crucial subjects in studying the world economy. This is my point.
(3) I think your two suggested alternatives are compatible with each other.
I think both are right.
In solidarity,
Chai-on