>Michael W:
>
>I do not agree that for Marx, and certainly not for a dialectical
reconstruction
>of a Marxist account of capitalism, the moment of entering trade for money
is an
>adequate characterisation of a commodity. In addition a commodity must be
>produced, by the incorporation of labour, under capitalist relations of
>production, with a view to entering systematic generalised capitalist
commdodity
>exchange. On this basis, neither labour-power, nor unimproved gifts of nature
>('land') are grasped by the commodity form. Of course anyone can 'define'
>'commodity' any way they chose - but why sever all these crucial internal
>relations?
>
Paul C:
On the basis you state, the cotton entering Engels cotton factory was
not a commodity either since it was not produced under capitalist relations
of production.
You are adopting a uniquely restrictive definition of commodities, for which
I can see little precedent or justification.
Paul Cockshott
wpc@cs.strath.ac.uk
http://www.cs.strath.ac.uk/CS/Biog/wpc/index.html