Andrew K wrote in [OPE-L:5187]:
> I do not consider how anything in the Grundrisse can be considered
> definitive.
What *can* be considered to be definitive is Marx's stipulation that a
product must have use-value and value, and value must come to be expressed
through the value-form, for that product to be a commodity.
If you agree with the foregoing, then it *necessarily follows* that a
product can not have value and be a commodity *unless and until* it has
a use-value. Yet, use-value, and thereby the value of a potential
commodity, is only validated through the act of exchange. *At best*,
value, exchange-value and use-value can only be said to be
"pre-commensurated" (to use Mike W's term) before exchange. However,
simply because the "value" of a product has been "pre-commensurated" does
not imply (except by assumption) that it *will* be commensurated through
exchange.
Furthermore, while we're talking about "definitive" interpretations, let
me ask you a question I have asked before: how do you square your
interpretation with the "definitive" translation by Riccardo that what has
been rendered into English as "realization" [of value] is more accurately
translated as "actualization" [of value]?
E.g. if "value" is not "actual" (or "real") before exchange, then what is
it?
In solidarity, Jerry