Re: [OPE-L] Albritton on Arthur

[Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxx>]

> In my HM reply to critics I went so far as to deny there is a dialectic
> of value and use value on the grounds that  these were not true
> opposites in that while value certainly presupposes (negatively to be
> sure) use value, use value does not need value to complete its concept.
> They are not like north and south. This may have been too strict; for
> once subsumed under the value form use value can only realise itself
> through sale.

Hi Chris,

If one recognizes that the subject of _Capital_ is capitalism then there
is a way of untying that knot.  I.e. if the commodity in Ch. 1 is one
"in which the wealth of societies in which the capitalist mode of production
prevails",  then the subsumption _has_ occurred and the concepts of UV and
value (& EV) are already wedded to each other.   If one, OTOH, follows the
Uno-school and thinks that the subject initially is 'simple commodity
production' then one can not untie the knot in that way.

Thanks for your thought-provoking comments.  I'll will continue to ponder
the remainder of your post..

In solidarity, Jerry