A question for those who adhere to the "single-system interpretation":
For those who believe that the categories under analysis are not
trans-historical; and that
a necessary form of appearance of value is as exchange-value, i.e. the
value-form; and that
"money matters" in an interpretation of value; and that
while value is "created" in production by [socially-necessary] labor, the
magnitude of value can be *diminished* in the sphere of circulation prior
to final exchange, but that
value can't be *increased* in the aggregate by the *act* of exchange,
what then is the difference between the above and the value-form
interpretation?
In solidarity, Jerry