Charles wrote:
> He discusses historical examples of exchange of goods and services in kind,
> but they are not commodities.
But this is simply incorrect. The entire first chapter of Volume I is titled
"The Commodity." A large chunk of the chapter is concerned with explicating
the different abstract logical forms of value (which inheres only to
commodities), leading up to the form of the general equivalent. It is a
logical derivation of the necessity of money to commodity exchange, hence the
side-swipes Marx takes at thinkers like Proudhon.
This whole argument that Capital supposedly follows some historical sequence
rests upon the authority of Engels and Kautsky within classical Social
Democracy, where Capital was hardly ever read (more widespread was Kautsky's
summary, "Economic Doctrines of Marx"). Marx's own words state that his intent
is a depiction of the capitalist mode of production at its "ideal average".
Like a good scientist, Marx buttresses his theoretical arguments with empirical
material, but that doesn't mean that Capital is a historical narrative.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
