I. Re Andy's [6870]: > For completeness, could you indicate what 'value' is, on your > account? I agree with Chris's [6873]. So, "for completeness", the concept of value has to be developed systematically. I would add to Chris's account, though, that a systematic interrogation of the meaning of "socially necessary" in SNLT must be part of that unfolding and deepening of our comprehension of value-forms. I tried to do that in a series of posts in Spring, 2001. II. Re Nicky's [6885]: a) When you wrote in 3) that value in commodity form prior to actualization through exchange is "ideal money", didn't you mean that it was "ideal value"? I have doubts about the advisability of the expression "ideal money" since money can serve as money -- in actuality rather than just ideally -- when it is withdrawn from circulation, e.g. when it takes the form of a hoard. b) Your attempt to build on and synthesize Chris's [6873] and Geert's [6882] is quite interesting, but I think that if all of the rocks are overturned so that we can fully compare Chris's (and Tony's) perspectives on value with that of Geert (and Mike W) we will find not only significant areas of agreement but _also_ significant areas of disagreement within the VFT tradition. Yet, I am quite curious about how these comrades would articulate those differences so I will sit back, listen, and sip my cup of coffee and contemplate. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:08 EDT