> 1. Doesn't Allin's definition actually refers *unilaterally*
> to the SUBSTANCE OF VALUE?
>
> 2. Why does Marx distinguish and analyse the relationship
> between value-substance (WERTSUBSTANZ) and value-form
> (WERTFORM)?
Marx wants to argue that while the labour-time socially
necessary to (re-)produce any given product is a quantity of
importance in any economic system, it's only in a
commodity-producing economy (social production, private
appropriation) that this magnitude is "represented by" or
"appears as" exchange-value. I accept his point, but find that
the terminology in which he makes it is unnecessarily
complicated.
Allin Cottrell.