The version in the appendix to capital [p. 983] translates it differently
and as two sentences:
"This is why we find in the capitalist process of production this
*indissoluble fusion* of use-values in which capital subsists in the form of
the *means of production* and *objects* defined as capital, when what we are
really faced with is a definite social relationship of production. In
consequence the *product* embedded in this mode of production is equated
with the commodity by those who have to deal with it."
I trust this is clearer than the sentence you reported, which doesn't appear
to be grammatical.
Carrol Cox wrote,
>The sentence that throws me immediately precedes:
>
>Hence where the capitalist production process is the basis the _use
>values_ in which capital exists in the form of _means of production, the
>character of these _things_ as _capital_, which is a particular social
>relation of production; just as to those caught up in this mode of
>production the _product_ counts as in and for itself a _commodity_. This
>is the basis . . .fetishism.... (CW 34, pg.392)
Tom Walker
Bowen Island, BC
604 947 2213
