Charles, this is wrong for two reasons.
1) Carrol hasn't explicitly formulated any position on the "logical vs. historical" debate. He does seem to be in theoretical agreement with the "logical" camp, but that logical camp is very broad. It encompasses for example Paul Sweezy.
^^^^^^^^ CB: I think he has as long ago as about 11 years ago or so on Marxism-Thaxis; and from time to time since then. I remember disagreeing with him then on this point.
^^^
2) Nobody is arguing that there is no historical content in the first chapter of _Capital_. Either you've badly misunderstood what people have been saying, or you're deliberately misrepresenting a position.
What I and others have argued is that the commodity-form analysis is not a retracing of the steps of a historical process, but rather an exploration of the inner logic of the commodity form and money as a general equivalent.
^^^^ CB: Are you saying that barter - exchange of commodities without money - never existed ? Or that Marx holds that it never existed ?
Anyway, Marx's language in the passage below suggests to me he _is_ retracing the steps of a historical process. For example, he says "The simple commodity form is therefore the germ of the money form. " or " The progress consists in this alone, that the character of direct and universal exchangeability – in other words, that the universal equivalent form – has now, by social custom, become finally identified with the substance, gold. "
"has now , by social custom become finally..." seems to refer to a historical development , not just a logical development.
^^^^^^
3. Transition from the General form of value to the Money form
The universal equivalent form is a form of value in general. It can, therefore, be assumed by any commodity. On the other hand, if a commodity be found to have assumed the universal equivalent form (form C), this is only because and in so far as it has been excluded from the rest of all other commodities as their equivalent, and that by their own act. And from the moment that this exclusion becomes finally restricted to one particular commodity, from that moment only, the general form of relative value of the world of commodities obtains real consistence and general social validity.
The particular commodity, with whose bodily form the equivalent form is thus socially identified, now becomes the money commodity, or serves as money. It becomes the special social function of that commodity, and consequently its social monopoly, to play within the world of commodities the part of the universal equivalent. Amongst the commodities which, in form B, figure as particular equivalents of the linen, and, in form C, express in common their relative values in linen, this foremost place has been attained by one in particular – namely, gold. If, then, in form C we replace the linen by gold, we get,
D. The Money-Form 20 yards of linen = 1 coat = 10 lbs of tea = 40 lbs of coffee = 1 quarter of corn = 2 ounces of gold = ½ a ton of iron = x Commodity A =
= 2 ounces of gold
In passing from form A to form B, and from the latter to form C, the changes are fundamental. On the other hand, there is no difference between forms C and D, except that, in the latter, gold has assumed the equivalent form in the place of linen. Gold is in form D, what linen was in form C – the universal equivalent. The progress consists in this alone, that the character of direct and universal exchangeability – in other words, that the universal equivalent form – has now, by social custom, become finally identified with the substance, gold.
Gold is now money with reference to all other commodities only because it was previously, with reference to them, a simple commodity. Like all other commodities, it was also capable of serving as an equivalent, either as simple equivalent in isolated exchanges, or as particular equivalent by the side of others. Gradually it began to serve, within varying limits, as universal equivalent. So soon as it monopolises this position in the expression of value for the world of commodities, it becomes the money commodity, and then, and not till then, does form D become distinct from form C, and the general form of value become changed into the money form.
The elementary expression of the relative value of a single commodity, such as linen, in terms of the commodity, such as gold, that plays the part of money, is the price form of that commodity. The price form of the linen is therefore
20 yards of linen = 2 ounces of gold, or, if 2 ounces of gold when coined are £2, 20 yards of linen = £2.
The difficulty in forming a concept of the money form, consists in clearly comprehending the universal equivalent form, and as a necessary corollary, the general form of value, form C. The latter is deducible from form B, the expanded form of value, the essential component element of which, we saw, is form A, 20 yards of linen = 1 coat or x commodity A = y commodity B. The simple commodity form is therefore the germ of the money form.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S3d