Re: (OPE-L) value, money, and the exchange of equivalents

[Phil Dunn <pscumnud@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jerry

> Phil wrote:
>
> >  Marx's analysis of the value form is not cast at the aggregate level.
>
> What 'level' is the value form analysis cast at?
>
> The assumption that price equals value holds only at
> the aggregate level.  It certainly does not hold for each
> and every commodity.  Paul C is correct in noting that a
> large part of Volume III deals with explaining _systematic_
> differences between value and price but I wouldn't
> necessarily concede that the differences in the price of
> the same bottles of Coca-Cola at different nearby locations
> during the same time period can be viewed as "random"
> disturbances.  In any event, though, _that_ is a subject
> whose explanation is not found in Volume III but rather concerns,
> I think, pricing strategies in oligopolistic markets where
> there is product differentiation and brand loyalty, etc.
>
> I still don't quite comprehend your resistance to reading
> Volume III.  Socialists were eagerly looking forward to
> reading Volume III when it was published by Engels.  It
> was viewed by them as a major part of "the story" that
> hadn't been published until that time.  When you read other
> trilogies, do you stop after the 2nd volume if you enjoyed
> and/or learned a lot from the first 2 volumes in that
> series?
>
> In solidarity, Jerry


To give up the idea that money is a universal equivalent merely
because prices can fluctuate while production conditions remain
unchanged seems to me to be folly.  Marx does it, of course.  If
money is not a universal equivalent then what is it? A veil?

Consider the circuit of money capital.  The capitalist starts off
with some money but the value of the constant capital acquired with
it is not equal to the value of the money.  The capitalist ends up
with more money but the value  of this money is not equal to the
value of the commodity capital sold.  This is supposed to be a theory
of some sort, is it?

The question is not whether I should read Volume 3 but rather why, if
the universal equivalent is rejected, anyone should bother to read
Volume I?

Yours

Phil