Re Fred's [5795]: > My main point is that Marx derived > money as the necessary form of appearance of > the underlying essence (or content or substance) > of abstract labor, which is assumed to exist as > an entity distinct from money. Hi Fred. I believe it is mistaken to view the relation between form and content as uni-directional. I.e. I believe that content determines form _and_ form determines content for the commodity. Let me illustrate the problem with your reasoning above: you say that your main point is that abstract labor (what you claim to be content) is 'distinct from' (i.e. exists independently from) exchange value (i.e. the value form; the necessary form of appearance of value). Yet, there is something manifestly wrong with your logic (which I believe can be traced to an attempt to comprehend a dialectical relation in terms of analytical logic): If abstract labor is, as you say, truly 'distinct from' the value-form then if a 'commodity' for whatever reason ceases to have a value-form then it thereby ceases to have value. This result is OK by my reasoning, but I don't think it can be reconciled with yours. If it is truly the case, as you say, that 'content' (abstract labor) is distinct from form (the value-form), then abstract labor would continue to exist *without form* (and thereby the value-form would _not_ be the _necessary_ form of appearance of value). The way out of this is to conclude that the absence of form can *negate* the 'content'. Yet, if this is one's conclusion then abstract labor, the value-form, and money are all necessarily *linked* and no one concept exists 'distinct from' the concepts they are mated to. This sort of mutual determination is not easily expressed with analytical logic. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:29 EDT