Hi Chris, and all, re OPE-L: 6945 It is worth recalling the discussion that led up to OPE-L: 6945. Essentially, Nicky, Geert, Chris, Jerry and Tony had, amongst other things, recapped some of the initial steps of the VFT reconstruction of capitalism. In my previous post I drew on these various presentations in order an attempt to grasp the VFT notion of value, value form, form of value, money, and so on. Chris has responded by pointing out that my attempt was flawed not least by my inadequate grasp of the notion of a 'predicate'. Let me try again. The value-form is the mode of association definitive of capitalism, a mode necessitated by dissociation. The first step in explicating this mode of association is to introduce the category 'value'. What, then, is 'value'? It is the form that things take that is specific to capitalism. 'Things', (let's say 'products'), are in fact 'commodities' in capitalism. They have a 'two-fold character': on the one hand they are use-values, on the other hand they are 'values'. Now, the natural properties of the commodity (determined by its extension in time and space) are no different to the natural properties it has outside of capitalism (when it is not a commodity). >From the point of view of material constitution, the commodity is identical to the product outside of capitalism. So the new 'form of value' that the commodity acquires within capitalism is, in this sense, 'purely social'. It seems, then, that value has something to do with 'society' but nothing to do with the material constitution of objects. To recap: 'value' is that which is necessary for association; value is a form taken by the product within capitalism; value is purely social; value has something to do with society (but not with the material constitution of objects). But none of this gives a full answer to the question, 'what is value?'. We will only learn more through further systematic dialectical development (whence money, capital, and so on are derived) Final note: there seems to be a difference difference between Chris and Geert/Michael re the introduction of value: R&W introduce value as necessary to preserve dissociation; Chris introduces value simply as a possibility at this stage, one which is grounded only later in the presentation. Is the above an accurate VFT answer to the original questions, 'what is value?', 'what is value form'? Or do I find myself, once more, barking up the wrong tree?! Best wishes, Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:09 EDT