In yet another excellent post (5654) Fred wrote: > >Section 1 derives the content (or "substance") of value - abstract labor - >as the common substance of commodities that determines their >exchange-values. The title of Section 1 is: "The Two Factors of the >Commodity: Use-Value and Value (SUBSTANCE of Value, Magnitude of >Value)." (p. 125; emphasis added). > >After his derivation of abstract labor, Marx remarked: "The progress of >our investigation will lead us back to exchange-value as the necessary >mode of expression, or FORM of appearance, of value. For the present, >however, we must first consider the nature of value INDEPENDENTLY OF ITS >FORM of appearance." (p 128; emphasis added). Fred, thumbing through the first part the other day, I noticed that Marx initially derives abstract labor as a residue but then redetermines it more positively. Patrick Murray has also argued that the derivation of the substance of abstract labor is incomplete in Section I. So I am asking whether you think the derivation of abstract labor is complete in section 1? How is the derivation supplemented? Does the supplementation change the character of the initial derivation (as Murray has argued)? Best, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:08 EDT