Re: [OPE-L] Marx's Form of Analysis

[Howard Engelskirchen <howarde@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Norice that value is an unobservable -- it does not, cannot appear.
Therefore it is manifested by means of forms of appearance (exchange value,
money).  But, following Aristotle, a very different sort of form makes it
what it is -- this is value's constitutive form, its nature or essence, and
what that is, following Bettelheim, I've explained on the list before.  This
can be give a fully contemporary gloss by attention to the way scientific
realism approaches questions of real definition -- we can express the causal
structure that characterizes the nature of value in terms of its
constitutive form.

howard



----- Original Message -----
From: <Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxx>
To: <OPE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 5:51 PM
Subject: [OPE-L] Marx's Form of Analysis


> Hi again Phil:
>
> > I am not sure I understand this. You say and I query in brackets:
> > the value-form [exchange-value?]
> * Yes.
> >  is a necessary form of appearance of value and the money-form  [?money]
> * Yes.
> > is a necessary form of appearance of the value-form [exchange value?];
> * Yes.
> > hence value, use-value [how did use-value get in, as the necessary form
> > of appearance of money/money-form?],
> *  Use-value is a category required for the existence of value, it is
>     a 'constituent' of value.
>     ||| no use-value => no value;  no use-value => no exchange value |||
>
> > exchange-value, and
> > money are all "intrinsic" to the commodity-form).
>
> > [PD] I think what is needed here is a lengthy study of the various
senses
> > in which Marx used thr term form.
>
> Yes, I think that would be an excellent topic to discuss.
>
> I believe that Marx used the term value-form in more than one sense:
> one is the sense you referred to, the other was meant to mean
> exchange-value.  Value-form theory (VFT), which utilizes form
> _analysis_, refers to the former.
>
> Perhaps a way of discussing that topic would be to consider the various
> senses in which form was used _prior to_ Marx (e.g. in Hegel) and then
> to consider how Marx's usage was similar to and different from prior
> usage.
>
> You know something about Aristotle, I recall.  What were the various
> senses in which Aristotle used the term form? (I'll cc Michael E because
> that's a topic that he should know about as well and  I don't know how
> often he reads posts).
>
> Who first developed the expression "form analysis"?
>
> > 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?
>
> The Marx associated with the expression "Lord High Everything
> Else" was none other than  -- you bet your life -- Graucho.  So,
> whoever said the above was playfully mixing Marxs.
>
> In solidarity, Jerry