> CB: It's ok if it's socially , throughly planned ,not almost all commodity
> producers isolated from each other producing them with the aim of maximizing
> their own, individual private wealth,indifferent to the production and
> consumption of society as a whole. But then this is not really a
> "commodity", because commodities have always been produced in private
> isolation from the production of other commodities.
Well, Marx's definition of a commodity and yours are apparently different. Marx defines a commodity as "an external object, a thing which through its qualities satisfies human needs of whatever kind" (Marx, Capital 125) and is then exchanged for something else."
It seems to me that even under Primitive Communism there is commodity exchange so I don't think your historical argument holds water.
> Socialism will have a division of labor and exchange between the divisions.
> It won't be that each individual produces self-sufficiently to meet their
> entire personal kit of needs. But the different divisions and sectors of
> production will be consciously and directly coordinated and planned. There
> will be "socialist commodities" , but we'll need a new name because this
> lacks a fundamental characteristic of the historically derived commodity.
To plan an economy with any sense, you have to attach values - relative use-values - to the commodities produced. Coordination implies that you are coordinating in aid of serving the consumer market. Whether this market is a money-mediated market, or a distribution scheme with INEVITABLE barter trade built into it, you have commodities, judged for value and traded. So - to return to the original subject - you have the "value form".
Boddi