Critique of Rubin’ theory on value

[MIYACHI <miyachi9@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> Louis wrote:
> There are a few very good things around about commodity fetishism - see,
> for instance, the Bolshevik economist, I.I. Rubin, 'Essays on Marx's
> Theory of Value', Detroit, Black and Red Press, 1972, which also
> contains an excellent introduction by Fredy Pearlman which is centred on
> the concept; there's also a useful chapter on commodity fetishism in Tom
> Kemp, "Marx's 'Capital' Today', London, New Park, 1982.
>
Louis's evaluation on Rubin is incorrect. Below is my argument

>Critique of Rubin’ theory on value

Rubin says that "form of value" (Wertform) does not mean the various forms
which value acquired in its development (for example, accidental, expanded,
and general forms of value), but of value itself, which is considered as the
social form of the product of labor. n other words, here we do not have in
mind the various "forms of value," but "value as form." .
   here, we discover that Rubin identifies value as form with the social
form of the product of labor. But why does Rubin separate form of value from
value as form?

 Rubin argues that;
  “The product of labor is transformed into a commodity; it has use value
and   the social "form of value." Thus social labor is "reified," it
acquires the "form of value,"i.e., the form of a property attached to things
and which seems to belong to the things themselves. This "reified" labor
(and not social labor as such) is precisely what represents value. “


     It is incorrect. Marx begins to analyze  commodity as having dual
character, i.e. use-value and value, not the social "form of value." and he
proceeds to analyze value and discovers that
human labor is embodied in them. When looked at as crystals of this social
substance, common to them all, they are ― Values.
  From that he begins to analyze form of value, ie, They manifest themselves
therefore as commodities, or have the form of commodities, only in so far as
they have two forms, a physical or natural form, and a value-form.
 Thus for Marx, abstract labor must be proved from concept of value, Rubin
inversely tries to prove concept of value from concept of labor, ie. reified
labor.

 Certainly in USSR, Rubin correctly developed his claim against Cohn’s
argument that abstract labor is in common in history. But his failure is the
vague concept of "value form"