I'm afraid I only have time now to partially respond to Chai-on's
[OPE-L:4986]:
> Chai-on: The term "realization" might cause you to imagine something unreal
> (= something non-existent) is realized.
I think the point about "realization" is that prior to exchange, value
only exists as possibility (or what you call below "potential value"),
i.e. products have been produced (really!; that is, they really exist _as
products_), and therefore have a *material* form, but for products to
fully become commodities and have value, they must have a use-value and
an exchange value and it is the act of exchange which validates (or does
not validate) products _as commodities_.
> Some potential value is
> realized as value by the exchange, this is Marx's concept.
(see above).
> "Ideal value"?
> Please, why do we have to use the awkward word, "ideal value", which does
> not appear in Marx's writings? I should say, potential non-value or
> potential value intead. <snip>
> Chai-on: It was value, not ideal value. Ideal value is your invention, not
> Marx's.<snip>
See Mike L's [4874].
> May I?
May you what?
If the brevity of this response is unsatisfactory, please tell me what
specific points you would like me to respond further to.
In solidarity, Jerry