These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
On 9/3/08 10:57 AM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> So the cell of bourgeois society and its "unit of analysis"
> is *not* a commodity, but the commodity relation.
OK, Andy. But it was you who first said:
"Marx applied the idea to political economy and came up with
the *Commodity*, as the simplest relation of bourgeois
society and the simplest unit of capital."
I think we both agree that a commodity *is* a relation, *and* a process. It
*appears* to be merely a thing, but analysis shows that it is much more than
this. But I would still argue that analysis shouldn't be conducted on the
'unit' in isolation, but as it participates in something larger.
Martin
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Fri Sep 5 06:14 PDT 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Oct 01 2008 - 00:30:04 PDT