From: Philip Dunn (pscumnud@DIRCON.CO.UK)
Date: Mon Feb 14 2005 - 16:35:58 EST
Quoting Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: > Hi Phil: > > For those who want to read something 'new', skip I. and scroll > down to section II. > > I. Summary? > > > I do not conflate price with value. The embodied labour value of a > > produced commodity is intrinsic to that commodity. The value of the > > money that the commodity sells for is intrinsic to the money. They are > > quite distinct, despite being equal. > > > Well, I see your point (that's progress, I guess) but I don't agree with it. > While I agree with what I take to be a major point of yours (the way I > would put it is as follows: the value-form is a necessary form of appearance > of value and the money-form is a necessary form of appearance of the > value-form; hence value, use-value, exchange-value, and money are all > "intrinsic" to the commodity-form). I am not sure I understand this. You say and I query in brackets: the value-form [exchange-value?] is a necessary form of appearance of value and the money-form [?money] is a necessary form of appearance of the value-form [exchange value?]; hence value, use-value [how did use-value get in, as the necessary form of appearance of money/money-form?], exchange-value, and money are all "intrinsic" to the commodity-form). From memory, Marx said (CI ch3): Money, as a measure of value, is the necessary form of appearance of the measure of value immanent in commodities, namely labour-time. I look at the the commodity-form, money-form, the capital-form etc. as parts or moments of the value-form. And I look at the whole value-from as the mode/species/form of capitalist surplus labour extraction. I think what is needed here is a lengthy study of the various senses in which Marx used thr term form. As to use-value, someone once said that for Marx value was King but use-value was Lord High Everything Else. Does anyone recall who sais that? Philip Dunn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 15 2005 - 00:00:02 EST