In message <005d01bf8d20$a4928980$53fe869f@oemcomputer>, George
Pennefather <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>George: I never said that the fact that something is not being sold at the
>moment does not
>stop it from being a commodity. What I said was much more modest: Marx is wrong
>when he
>claims that the wealth of capitalist society appears in the form of an immense
>accumulation of commodities. Much of the wealth appears in the form of non-
>commodities. If
>anything it appears in the form of an immense accumulation of use values.
I'm sorry but I'm still confused about your point.
Since the specific form of wealth in capitalist societies, if Marx is
right, is an accumulation of commodities, then these commodities are
both use value and exchange value, that being the properties of a
commodity. And that is precisely what wealth is in capitalist society,
both use-value, and, since no capitalist property is inalienable (unlike
say feudal land-holdings) then at the same time, exchange value, or
value.
The truth of this is evident in the way that assets are valued for
taxation purposes, or on the market as share prices. I still do not see
what it is that is not a commodity, certainly factories, and fixed
capital generally is a commodity, how else could it have value? How else
could machinery, as Marx says, pass on its value, piece meal to the
commodity, if it itself was not a commodity?
George says fixed capital is not a commodity, but ALL CAPITAL is a
commodity, that's what capital markets are for. You say that 'in its
function as a factory' it is not a commodity. But that is like saying
'in its function as a use value it is not an exchange value' - but that
would be true of every single use-value. Functional analysis here is
hostile to Marx's method.
So when George says
> I
>am right
>and Marx wrong.
I take that to mean that he and Marx are talking at cross purposes
--
Jim heartfield
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
