A consideration of the implications of this issue from the perspective of the logical method employed by Marx in terms of the ordering of categories: 1. Steve wants us to believe that uv and ev are both "entities [which] are measured in units of socially necessary abstract labor-time". If this were true, then it would imply that the categories of value and abstract labor are more abstract than the more "concrete" categoies of uv and ev. I.e. abstract labor and value would have had to be derived first and we would then move to the categories of uv and ev which (as expressed by Steve above) presuppose the prior development of the categories of value and abstract labor. Yet, the exact opposite in terms of the ordering of these categories is done by Marx. 2. If uv is a unity of both quality and quantity, then it presupposes *simpler* categories upon which uv is derived. Yet, there are no simpler categories (that I can think of) that are required to adequately conceptualize uv where quality and quantity first come into conflict with each other in terms of simple unity and difference. Rather, the progression to a unity of quality and quantity only happens *after* the dialectical relationship of uv, ev, and value are developed and the core of the commodity- form is thus reconstructed in thought. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:29 EDT