From: Howard Engelskirchen <howarde-AT-wsulaw.edu> Subject: RE: BHA: Radical Chains Indeed Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:06:46 -0700 Tobin and Colin -- No, markets don't imply capitalism -- there are precapitalist markets and postcapitalist markets. Markets do imply commodity production and Marx does give a real definition of commodity production -- commodity production occurs whenever separate entities produce things useless to them which they exchange in independent transactions with other separate entities. (The difficulty of the definition is in saying "separate" or "private" or "autonomous" simply.) Where this exists you unleash the tendential forces which generate markets and money and, in the end, capital. Of course, as Colin sugests there have historically been markets without money (though not without commodities), but no one is suggesting that socialist emancipation will lead to a bartar economy. As for your definition of markets, Colin, "a system which facilitates the exchange of objects (which are different from commodities)," everybody is entitled to their own opinion, as they say, but this sounds more like a pomo axiom than a scientific one. It is certain that you could not present a scientific analysis of capitalism making use of the category markets as you have defined it without ptolemaic contortions that in the end would come down to something like the definition I gave above. By the way, the quote Colin gives from MOM seems to me altogether accurate: "Emancipatory socialist action will involve transforming the market - more precisely, abolishing some markets, socialising and democratising others." (p.30). It is certain that the transition to socialism involves exactly this. But that doesn't mean markets are forever or that they would be part of a communist society. Howard -----Original Message----- From: Tobin Nellhaus [mailto:nellhaus-AT-gis.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 5:12 AM To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Subject: Re: BHA: Radical Chains Indeed Hi all-- I'm not sure what is desired as a sustained critique of Hume, but there do seem to be some fair passages in both RTS and SRHE. Re markets, I'm a little puzzled by the discussion, especially Howard's position, which seems to say that markets imply capitalism. My understanding was always that the mode of production conditions the mode of distribution (not vice versa), and that there are and have been plenty of markets in non-capitalist societies (e.g. in classical Athens, where the dominant mode of production was slavery). Money may be necessary in capitalism, but it's used elsewhere and a society is only capitalist if *labor power* is commodified, no? --- Tobin Nellhaus nellhaus-AT-mail.com "Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005