Hi John:
I am really enjoying this but just now my time is over. So, only a
brief comment:
You say:
> Technically, for Marx, there is one measure of value -- money.
I comment:
1. What do you mean for "technically"?
2. I disagree:
Money as the measure of value, is the phenomenal form that
must of necessity be assumed by that measure of value which
is immanent in commodities, labour-time.
Capital I, p. 94, Intl.
For Marx, value has a twofold measure, money (phenomenal, external)
and labor-time (immanent), which is only an extension of the
"dialectic" of value: value-substance and value-form.
I am understanding you problems with the MEL but this requires much
more time than that I have just now. (Could you read my paper for the
Conference? This would save us some time.)
In any case, in Ch 12 example there is a "redistributive process" of
the given labor time. This process is accomplished necessarily by
means of money and then this requires the analysis of the mutual
relation between labor-time and money.
Alejandro Ramos