[OPE-L:7041] [OPE-L:536] Re: Equality and equivalence
Steve Cullenberg (stephen.cullenberg@ucr.edu)
Fri, 26 Feb 1999 17:01:04 -0800
At 02:12 PM 2/26/99 +0000, you wrote:
>One of three posts in reply to Steve. I've made them separate because the
>points are distinct. Steve writes:
>
>> The equality of "abstract labor" per se is not what I am concerned
>> about. It is the issue of the special structure of thinking about
>> exchange in terms of an equality operator.
>
>OK Steve, instead of 'abstract labour' let's call it 'value' or 'common
>substance' or 'gloomph', or whatever you want. The concept of equality that
>you are applying is, exchange at equal *something*. You interpret Marx's
>use of the word 'equality', as meaning that something other than their
>price is *numerically equal* in two commodities that exchange with each
>other.
>
>Yes or No? If No, what *is* your understanding of what Marx means by
>'equality'?
>
>Alan
>
>
Alan,
Yes, I am assuming that there is a third substance different from each use
value (say a cd and a shirt), yet common to both, call it gloomph, that is
preserved in exchange. The equality that I am not referring to is the one
which might say that the price of a cd is $15 and the price of a shirt is
$30, and hence 1 shirt equals 2 cds. Do you not read the "gloomph type of
equality" in Chapter One of Capital, which is the type of equality I've
thought we've been discussing?
Steve
#############################################
Stephen Cullenberg Office: 909-787-5037, ext. 1573
Department of Economics Fax: 909-787-5685
University of California Email: stephen.cullenberg@ucr.edu
Riverside, CA 92521 www.ucr.edu/CHSS/depts/econ/sc.htm