RE: [OPE] value-form theory redux

What I am meaning is that Mises argued that without money there can be no comparison of economic alternatives, no rational economic calculation. Mises argued that against the possibility of socialist economy saying that a non monetary economy would descend into economic chaos because it would be unable to do economic calculation.

If Marx actually believed what you said 'Money, as a measure of
value, is the necessary form of appearance of the immanent measure of
value, namely,labour time.' Then Marx's well known political support for communism would be incomprehensible. If he thought that value could only be measured in terms of money, why did he advocate a programme for communism in which money would be abolished and replaced by labour accounts?

________________________________________
From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu [ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu] On Behalf Of Philip Dunn [hyl0morph@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 8:45 PM
To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list
Subject: RE: [OPE] value-form theory redux

On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 15:49 +0000, Paul Cockshott wrote:
> Philip:
>
> When VF theorist say that money is the sole measure of value ( better:
> money is the sole measure of the relative value of non-money
> commodities) it seems to me that they are talking about realised value.
> The corresponding potential is not so easy to put a finger on.
> -----------------------------
> Is this not just an echo of von Mises, one of the most prominent opponents of socialism and Marxism?
>
>
Alternatively, it could be an echo of Marx: Money, as a measure of
value, is the necessary form of appearance of the immanent measure of
value, namely,labour time.

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Tue Mar 17 18:46:02 2009