Allin wrote in [OPE-L:4655]:
> Most commodities most of the time are not totally new items;
> they have shown themselves to be use-values. Given that,
> their value is determined in production. [...]
I don't think it is legitimate to assume that simply because a certain
type of commodity has been shown to have a use-value in the past, that
future products of the same type will have a use-value and become
commodities. I would say, rather, that there is always the possibility
that a given type of "commodity" can be shown not to have a use-value or
value (and therefore not *be* a commodity) in exchange.
btw, I think that those who believe that Marx held that "commodities"
become commodities in production will have a very difficult time
explaining what Marx meant be "*REAL*ization" or "*ACTUAL*ization" of
value and surplus-value (emphasis added, JL).
In solidarity, Jerry