This question <5|23> overall <7|9> Civic: <6|122>.

Question 13: Would it have been possible to start with a “common sense” definition of capitalism, such as, that capitalist production is production for profit?

[8] Civic: No, I think that any discipline has to build on stepping stones. Marx could not simply state that capitalism is “production for profit” without proper explanation of context and building blocks. Marx feels that the commodity is the basic building block of capitalism. Just as it would be erroneous for one to understand nuclear physics without a complete understanding of the atom, one must first be able to digest the commodity in order to understand capitalism. The problem with beginning with the definition of capitalism is that the reader may make false or incorrect assumptions because the building blocks and the pathways have not yet been established. It is clear that certain definitions must be established before they can be built on for further definitions. It is true that the writer has artistic license to begin wherever he or she deems appropriate, but the logical sequence should seem clear such that the reader will not make faulty assumptions. If Marx's wanted to begin with the defintion of capitalism he could have done this just for ease of reading, but as far as definitions go, commodities is the appropriate place to begin. If the reader is unclear as to the starting point or the logic of the arguments this is the readers responsibility to search it out such that the arguments make sense.

I think Marx's starting point is appropriate, but his introduction as to where he is going and why could have been expanded upon. The one sentence at the beginning of page 125 confused me at first reading, but I was more clear with additional readings and the annotations.

Hans: I think you can learn from what I wrote about a similar response in [5]

	Students enrolled for Econ 5080 in 2009fa are invited to give feedback to the above message Pseudonym:      UofU ID:   Text: