Re: [OPE-L] Capital in General

[Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:00:15 +0100
 Andrew Brown <A.Brown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Michael,
>
> I think there is a general point here. But will have to work towards it via discussing
> specifics:
>
> You wrote
>
>         I'm not certain about the significance
> you attribute to 'appearance form' vs form.
>
> I reply: in the first four chs we find that M (universal equivalent) is *appearance* form of
> value because it is socially validated as reflecting the value of C (the relative form of value).
> C, on the other hand, is a form of value, but not an *appearance* form of value because all that
> *appears* are its material properties, not its value.


Andrew, I don't the C is in itself a form of value while M is in itself an appearance form of
value.
To use the language of quantum mechanics, Value is itself the system--
the thing being measured and the measurement being
made--rather than being an independent description of the thing being
measured or the thing measuring. Value, in short, may not exist as an
independent unobservable thing or simply as the relative form
of value that can then be transformed into price. Value only exists
at the level of the system.


Value in the relative and general forms are not two substances defined by
respective principal attributes but rather movements without
locatable discontinuity where the other is always involved. There is
no cleavage between an unobservable value (relative form of value) and visible price
(appearance form of value).

I think we are close to saying the same thing but I would not afford the same reality
to value in just the relative form as I think you are.

Is this a difference?

Rakesh