Re: (OPE-L) Re: Roberto Veneziani article on TSS

[Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jerry wrote:

>  the point that I'm
> making here (having to do with  assumptions and 'givens')  is a
> methodological one related to the unfolding and ordering of the
> analysis in  a systematic dialectical presentation of the bourgeois mode
> of production. (Jeez ... I'm beginning to sound like an amalgam of
> Mike W and Tony S.).

But Marx's movement from the accidental to the expanded to the
general form of value is not meant simply as a dialectical unfolding
of ideas in an analysis; it is also a a practical dialectic. Exchange
beginning in simple barter--the purely occassional exchange of this
for that--did develop into systematized exchange, into buying and
selling, which presupposes logically and historically an accepted
universal form of value, distinct from and opposable to all
particular exchange values, whatsoever. In a word, exchange
begets--Money. At every point the movement of Marx's dialectical
analysis (the inadequacies or incompleteness of the lower forms of
value) reproduces (or claims to reproduce) the actual historical
movement. Money did grow out of barter.
Whether Hegel's dialectic is also historical as well as logical is
another question of course.

Jerry also wrote:

> Yet,  there is a systematic divergence of
> individual values from market prices (diversity) that, in Marx's theory,
> leads to the concept of prices of production (unity-in-diversity).


Which leads me to ask in what way could Value be understood as the
unity term between use value value and exchange value?



Rakesh