From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Mon Feb 14 2005 - 17:51:50 EST
Hi again Phil:
> I am not sure I understand this. You say and I query in brackets:
> the value-form [exchange-value?]
* Yes.
> is a necessary form of appearance of value and the money-form [?money]
* Yes.
> is a necessary form of appearance of the value-form [exchange value?];
* Yes.
> hence value, use-value [how did use-value get in, as the necessary form
> of appearance of money/money-form?],
* Use-value is a category required for the existence of value, it is
a 'constituent' of value.
||| no use-value => no value; no use-value => no exchange value |||
> exchange-value, and
> money are all "intrinsic" to the commodity-form).
> [PD] I think what is needed here is a lengthy study of the various senses
> in which Marx used thr term form.
Yes, I think that would be an excellent topic to discuss.
I believe that Marx used the term value-form in more than one sense:
one is the sense you referred to, the other was meant to mean
exchange-value. Value-form theory (VFT), which utilizes form
_analysis_, refers to the former.
Perhaps a way of discussing that topic would be to consider the various
senses in which form was used _prior to_ Marx (e.g. in Hegel) and then
to consider how Marx's usage was similar to and different from prior
usage.
You know something about Aristotle, I recall. What were the various
senses in which Aristotle used the term form? (I'll cc Michael E because
that's a topic that he should know about as well and I don't know how
often he reads posts).
Who first developed the expression "form analysis"?
> 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?
The Marx associated with the expression "Lord High Everything
Else" was none other than -- you bet your life -- Graucho. So,
whoever said the above was playfully mixing Marxs.
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 16 2005 - 00:00:02 EST