Re: [OPE-L] The Law of Value and Rib Tips

[Philip Dunn <pscumnud@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoting Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxx:

> Hi Phil:
> 
> For those who want to read something 'new',  skip I.  and scroll
> down to section II.
> 
> I. Summary?
> 
> > I do not conflate price with value.  The embodied labour value of a
> > produced commodity is intrinsic to that commodity.  The value of the
> > money that the commodity sells for is intrinsic to the money.  They are
> > quite distinct, despite being equal.
> 
> 
> Well, I see your point (that's progress, I guess) but I don't agree with it.
> While I agree with what I take to be a major point of yours (the way I
> would put it is as follows: the value-form is a necessary form of appearance
> of value and the money-form is a necessary form of appearance of the
> value-form; hence value, use-value, exchange-value, and money are all
> "intrinsic" to the commodity-form). 

I am not sure I understand this. You say and I query in brackets:
  
the value-form [exchange-value?] is a necessary form of appearance
of value and the money-form [?money] is a necessary form of appearance of the
value-form [exchange value?]; hence value, use-value [how did use-value get in,
as the necessary form of appearance of money/money-form?], exchange-value, and
money are all "intrinsic" to the commodity-form). 

>From memory, Marx said (CI ch3):

Money, as a measure of value, is the necessary form of appearance of the
measure
of value immanent in commodities, namely labour-time.

I look at the the commodity-form, money-form, the capital-form etc. as parts or
moments of the value-form.  And I look at the whole value-from as the
mode/species/form of capitalist surplus labour extraction.

I think what is needed here is a lengthy study of the various senses in which
Marx used thr term form.

As to use-value, someone once said that for Marx value was King but use-value
was Lord High Everything Else.  Does anyone recall who sais that? 


Philip Dunn