| This question <80|80> overall <54|56> Nena: <54|56>. |
| Question 14: Does Marx discuss the commodity and money before discussing capital because they precede capital historically? (Compare Grundrisse [mecw28]37:1--45:4; R259.) |
| [55] Nena: In general, and historically, the claim that the “factors of production”- capital, land and labor (each have their own contribution, such as interest (profit), rent and wages), according to their marginal product, remains the basis of both orthodox and classical economics. |
| Hans: Grammar (misplaced parentheses). Read your answer over and edit it before sending it off! |
| Also the content of what you re saying is quite wrong. In classical economics (Smith, Ricardo, and Marx), only labor produces value, land and capital do not contribute to the value of the product! |
| [55] Nena: But Marx put the discussion of commodity and mony at the first, because Marx has decided that the first category of bourgeois economic and wealth presented is “commodity”. |
| Hans: He did it because he wanted to do it? Is that all? |
| [55] Nena: The commodity itself appears as unity of two aspects. |
| Hans: What does that have to do with it? |
| [55] Nena: And Marx also saw commodity and its form is very specific to the discussion of capitalist mode of production. |
| Hans: Not only specific to the discussion of it, but specific to the capitalist mode of production itself. |
| [55] Nena: Marx also saw in the furture that money is a form of interest-bearing capital which is going to dominate the capitalist society's production function. |
|
|
|||||