From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Mon Apr 03 2006 - 09:28:53 EDT
> In my HM reply to critics I went so far as to deny there is a dialectic > of value and use value on the grounds that these were not true > opposites in that while value certainly presupposes (negatively to be > sure) use value, use value does not need value to complete its concept. > They are not like north and south. This may have been too strict; for > once subsumed under the value form use value can only realise itself > through sale. Hi Chris, If one recognizes that the subject of _Capital_ is capitalism then there is a way of untying that knot. I.e. if the commodity in Ch. 1 is one "in which the wealth of societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails", then the subsumption _has_ occurred and the concepts of UV and value (& EV) are already wedded to each other. If one, OTOH, follows the Uno-school and thinks that the subject initially is 'simple commodity production' then one can not untie the knot in that way. Thanks for your thought-provoking comments. I'll will continue to ponder the remainder of your post.. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EDT