Thanks Jerry, So would it be fair to qualify your original statement by saying that we have an identity *of opposites* (value and money), rather than a mere identity? For completeness, could you indicate what 'value' is, on your account? Re repetition: I found your succinct account very helpful whether or not it has been repeated in the past. Also, it seems unlikely that people do repeat themselves too often on the topic: value is such a difficult topic that any individual's grasp of it may well continually be evolving. Best wishes, Andy From: "gerald_a_levy" <gerald_a_levy@msn.com> To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu> Subject: [OPE-L:6868] Re: value-form Date sent: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 07:37:36 -0500 Send reply to: ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu > Re [6867]: > > > Hello Jerry, > Hi Andy. > > > This notion of 'identity' puzzles me. If value *is* money, then what > > is the value-*form*? > > I'll let one of our VFT comrades answer your question concerning > their perspectives. > > For myself, I would express the relation as follows: > > Within a system of generalized commodity production and exchange, > commodities are defined by the duality of use-value and value where > the value-form is a necessary form of appearance of value and money > is a necessary form of appearance of the value-form. Thus, value, the > value-form, and money are all necessarily linked to each other and to > the commodity. I guess that means I have a "single-system" (as > distinct from a "dual system") interpretation. > > So that we don't all repeat ourselves endlessly, is there anybody that > wants to say something about this topic that they have _not_ said before > on this list? > > In solidarity, Jerry > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:08 EDT