From: Howard Engelskirchen (howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM)
Date: Wed Feb 16 2005 - 03:19:16 EST
Norice that value is an unobservable -- it does not, cannot appear. Therefore it is manifested by means of forms of appearance (exchange value, money). But, following Aristotle, a very different sort of form makes it what it is -- this is value's constitutive form, its nature or essence, and what that is, following Bettelheim, I've explained on the list before. This can be give a fully contemporary gloss by attention to the way scientific realism approaches questions of real definition -- we can express the causal structure that characterizes the nature of value in terms of its constitutive form. howard ----- Original Message ----- From: <Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 5:51 PM Subject: [OPE-L] Marx's Form of Analysis > 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 : Thu Feb 17 2005 - 00:00:02 EST