If you did, you would expect to get a basket of goods and services in return for your jam. Well, okay, but what if, instead of strawberry you insisted on making breadfruit and okra jam. You might still think of yourself as a jam-maker, but people are not going to be happy giving you perfectly good goods and services in exchange for jam they don't like and can't trade for other things because other people don't like it.
Even under socialism to make a living as a jam-maker and be fair to your community you have to produce commoditizable jam. Otherwise you're not being fair to the people who are providing you with the goods and services you want. And you're going to have to make good jam and A LOT of jam, because jam is pretty easy to make so a lot of people can do it and simple industrial processes can make huge quantities of jam at low economic cost, so you're asking for too much in return for your jam if you only make a little.
Simple fairness and the fact that we specialize in what we produce demand that we produce commodities. Whether or not we call them commodities is immaterial. If they must be judged for value and traded (whether for barter or money), then they are commodities.
Again I ask: "what's wrong with producing commodities?"
boddi
On 9/27/06, joanna <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
> I don't think he's saying it's evil; I think he's saying it's not necessary.
>
> I don't quite see how creating something that I myself don't want,
> necessarily results in a commodity.
>
> I just made many pints of raspberry and strawberry jam. Some I'll eat;
> some I'll give away. I don't think that makes the jam a commodity.
>
> Joanna
>
> boddi satva wrote:
>
> > C. Bill,
> >
> > Look around your house.
> >
> > Consider the things you want.
> >
> > They're commodities. They are objects subject to exchange, if for no
> > other reason than the basket of goods you want in your house is
> > different from the basket of goods I want in my house. So we have to
> > engage in exchange to get to the basket of goods we need.
> >
> > Of course people want to do work simply to contribute - the basis of
> > society is reciprocal altruism - but they do also want their needs
> > met. And so they offer to satisfy the needs of others (writing books,
> > working at a computer factory, and, yes, even having sex) in exchange
> > for the means to get what they want. It's not an evil thing. For
> > reciprocal altruism to work, there has to be reciprocity.
> >
> > Why do you insist that producing commodities is evil?
> >
> >
> > boddi
> >
> >
> > On 9/27/06, Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at aapt.net.au> wrote:
> >
> >> At 3:42 PM -0700 27/9/06, boddi satva wrote:
> >>
> >> >The tragedy is that
> >> >people want to work - want to be productive in exchange for their
> >> >needs -
> >>
> >> Wanting to be productive and wanting to be productive in exchange for
> >> their needs can be two different things.
> >>
> >> In fact the latter is somewhat illogical, its a bit like arguing that
> >> people want to have sex in exchange for being paid. Isn't it rather
> >> the case that people want to be productive and contribute to society
> >> full stop?
> >>
> >> > and find no opportunity. It's tragic that people *want* to
> >> >provide for each other and are denied the means because they lack even
> >> >small amounts of capital.
> >>
> >> If people want to provide for each other, then why do you insist that
> >> this can only be done through exchange of commodities?
> >>
> >> Bill Bartlett
> >> Bracknell Tas
> >> ___________________________________
> >> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >>
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>