Re [6868]: ,Hi Andy. > >> This notion of 'identity' puzzles me. If value *is* money, then what >> is the value-*form*? > >I'll let one of our VFT comrades answer your question concerning >their perspectives. It maybe that someone has said value is money. But speaking for myself I would stress hat value is only actual in the entire system of capitalist commodity production and exchange. Aspects of its 'concept' are as it were 'distributed' over varioius points each of which are systematically required to complement the others. Just to stick with form, I beleive value has commodity form, money form and capital form. Money has some sort of 'visibility' as 'value for itself' (Marx Gr.) but all these forms are required (just as in Hegel Being/Essence/Concept are jointly required to make up the thought totality) for example the commodity must be a product of capital. Certainly value cannot be identified with any element taken in isolation (e.g. money or labour); nor can it be given a two-word definition, its concept must be *developed* systematically. (Althugh Engels made some major blunders, he did stress this in a couple of places.) Chris A > >For myself, I would express the relation as follows: > >Within a system of generalized commodity production and exchange, >commodities are defined by the duality of use-value and value where >the value-form is a necessary form of appearance of value and money >is a necessary form of appearance of the value-form. Thus, value, the >value-form, and money are all necessarily linked to each other and to >the commodity. I guess that means I have a "single-system" (as >distinct from a "dual system") interpretation. > >So that we don't all repeat ourselves endlessly, is there anybody that >wants to say something about this topic that they have _not_ said before >on this list? > >In solidarity, Jerry 17 Bristol Road, Brighton, BN2 1AP, England
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:08 EDT