From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Thu Dec 19 2002 - 23:06:00 EST
Chris, you argued that in the Notes on Wagner, Marx denied that labor is the substance of EXCHANGE-VALUE. I argued in response that in Chapter 1, Marx certainly did not deny, but rather affirmed and emphasized, that abstract labor is the common substance of COMMODITIES that determines their exchange-values. You seem to agree with this - you say "your summary of Marx is generally accurate except ..." But then you say "... except where you write: "As previewed in Section 1, Section 3 derives money as the necessary form of appearance of the substance of value (abstract labor), as derived in Sections 1 and 2." You go on to say: "This repeats Wagner's error; if labour is not the common substance of exchange-value, a fortiori it is not the substance of money." But I am not arguing that labor is the substance of MONEY. Rather, I am arguing that abstract labor is the common substance of COMMODITIES, whose necessary form of appearance is money. This is clearly how Marx derived the necessity of money in Section 3 of Chapter 1. The characteristics of money - homogenous quality and definite quantities - are derived from these same characteristics of abstract labor. Thus, money is the appropriate and sufficient form of appearance of the salient characteristics of abstract labor. You, not I, are making the same mistake as Wagner - thinking that I am arguing that labor is the substance of MONEY, but I am arguing instead (following Marx) that abstract labor is the substance of COMMODITIES. Chris, you want to define something called "value" that is distinct from both abstract labor and money - the middle place in a "three place scheme". How exactly is this "value" defined? And since value must be a quantity, what is its unit of measure? I argue that value is not one place in a "three place scheme", but instead value is all three places together - the substance of VALUE is abstract labor, the magnitude of VALUE is socially necessary labor-time, and the necessary form of appearance of VALUE is money. This is what Marx clearly said in the passage from Section 1 that I quoted in my last post: "Now we know the SUBSTANCE OF VALUE. It is LABOUR. We know the MEASURE OF ITS MAGNITUDE. It is LABOUR-TIME. The FORM, which stamps VALUE as EXCHANGE-VALUE, remains to be analyzed. (C.I.: 131; emphasis in the original) Chris, how do you interpret this passage? Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 23 2002 - 00:00:01 EST