Re: Which Marxism? (fwd)

> Except that Marx was talking about production for exchange-values which
> makes him correct, especially in the core. Moreover, capitalist production
> subsumes under itself at a certain point other forms of production. This
> is why the character of the system is capitalist.

I'm not sure exactly what you refer to by production for exchange-values.  I
suspect you mean labor as a commodity.  But for KM labor power had an
exchange value (for the seller) and a use value (for the buyer) only with
the wage labor form of commodified labor, and his focus was on the factory
form of wage labor.  So I don't think he was correct.  Indeed, there has
been a long and ongoing debate about why small commodity production persists
within the core areas -- a conundrum from the orthodox Marxist view.  Lots
of this debate in the Journal of Peasant Studies.

As for subsumption of other forms, I completely agree, and the intro to the
Grundrisse is very interesting in this respect, don't you think?