G'day Thaxalotls,
Was cleaning out my backlog when it suddenly occurred to me that George
might have a point (although I don't know how important a point it need be).
Is a 'commodity' something that distinguishes itself from its hypothetical
being under another economic system purely on the criterion that it was
produced with the sole raison d'etre of being sold (after all, surplus
produce, for instance, was bought and sold thousands of years ago - and
publicly built infrastructure also comes to mind as an example)? If not,
why not?
If so, how would a factory (quite probably assembled out of things
themselves made to be sold), which may be sold at any time, but is not
necessarily produced with that objective in mind, be different from anything
else that was made with sale not uppermost in the processes that built it?
It is built from commodities, by way of labour power, in order to produce
commodities, and it can be sold at any time. For Jim, that makes it a
commodity. Certainly, it *presents itself* as a commodity, as capitalist
relations are such that all things have a price and are so measured. So the
sentence George dislikes rings true to me. That central alienating relation
certainly pertains. But does it matter that it may not have been produced
to be sold? And if so, why?
Sorry to be so dense, but I've suddenly come over a bit vague.
Cheers,
Rob.
>>A factory when used as a factory is a use value that is
>>not a
>>commodity. It is only a commodity when it is sold.
>
>George misses the point of Marx's comment. All wealth takes the form of
>commodities. The fact that something is not being sold at that moment
>does not stop it from being a commodity. (More to the point, George only
>recognises consumer goods and not capital goods as commodities).
>
>A factory that remained unsold throughout its lifetime would be a rare
>exception. Forgetting that the original site would be bought from one
>vendor, and the building from another, once constructed and in operation
>the factory, as the property of a business would be traded every day on
>the stock exchange (or more precisely, parts - shares - of it would be).
>
>It is also false to think that the commodities that rest unsold on the
>shelf of the supermarket at the end of a busy day are not therefore
>commodities (they only cease to be when they perish). A commodity that
>is not being sold at any one moment is not thereby any other kind of
>property than a commodity.
>
>Marx's point is very precise, and I am surprised that George want to
>quibble with it. Under capitalism all forms of wealth are commodities.
>
>
>In message <002d01bf8b47$b93d3b80$8afe869f@oemcomputer>, George
>Pennefather <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>>Jim is making a mistake. A factory when used as a factory is a use value
that is
>>not a
>>commodity. It is only a commodity when it is sold. Factories can exist for
years
>>and
>>years -indeed for their entire life span-- as use values --as forms of
fixed
>>capital.
>>
>>The dirty hanky in my pocket is a use value --snot rag. But if I am
prepared to
>>sell it to
>>you and you buy it from me because you have a use, say, for my snot rag
then it
>>eh presto
>>a commodity.
>>
>>Warm regards
>>George Pennefather
>>
>>Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank web site at
>>http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
>>
>>Be free to subscribe to our Communist Think-Tank mailing community by
>>simply placing subscribe in the body of the message at the following
address:
>>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>>George is making a mistake. A factory is a commodity that can be bought
>>or sold, just as it can be used in the hands of its owner. Factories are
>>bought and sold all the time.
>>--
>>Jim heartfield
>>
>>
>> --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
>
>--
>Jim heartfield
>
>
> --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
>
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
