On Mon, 15 Apr 1996, chaion lee wrote:
> Duncan raised a question,
> ------------------------
> Doesn't value have an immediate phenomenal form as the money value of a
> collection of commodities?
>
> Chai-on:
> --------
> If we understand the "immediate phenomenal form" as a form whose phenomenon is not distinct from its nature (or from its essence). Then, the answer should be "No". A collection of commodities represent its value in the form of money value but /i>
> the money form is not the immediate value form. Because some conceive it as the immediate form, they argue money is a purely numerical account. The labor theory of value must explain how and why the value represent itself as another, which is the
> core of the transformation problem. IMO, money is also a commodity and the sole difference between money and any other ordinary commodity is in its functions as the general equivalence. I would like to continue the discussion on the nature of money.
When I teach the labor theory of value, it is certainly easier to start
with money value, something the students are familiar with from their
everyday lives. In investigating and explaining the link between value and
social production Marxist theory seems to me to be at its most persuasive.
Duncan
>
> Yours,
>
> Chai-on
>
>
>