> That means <snip>
> that according to your reading of Chapter 1, Marx's conclusion follows
> because it was assumed in the first place, and not because of any
> "equalizing" properties of exchange. Marx's entire reference to the
> properties of exchange is, by this reading, redundant and a red herring.
1. It is necessary, and legitimate (given the subject matter at hand), to
examine commodities before non-commodities (e.g. unimproved land).
2. It is legitimate to consider products of wage-labor produced for
exchange under capitalist conditions at this stage of the analysis
since that is required to understand the subject matter of Volume 1
- Capitalist *Production*.
3. Understanding commodity production is required to grasp the essential
nature of capitalism. Understanding non-commodity production is
essential for grasping the essential nature of non-capitalist modes of
production.
4. You seem to think that the subject of rent is a dodge when raised in
relation to this topic. It is not a dodge, rather it was the specific
way in which many of the anomalies that you have mentioned are analyzed
by Marx.
In solidarity, Jerry