Re: [OPE-L] Question

[Pen-L Fred Moseley <fmoseley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jurrian,

To give you a little more background of my interpretation of Marx?s
concept of value:  I argue that in Chapter 1 of Volume 1, Marx
developed his concept of value in three aspects or dimensions:  the
SUBSTANCE of value (which is abstract labor), the MAGNITUDE of value
(which is socially necessary labor-time), and the FORM OF APPEARANCE of
value (which is money or prices).  These three dimensions are clear
from the title of Section 1 and the entire logical structure of Chapter
1 (first deriving the substance and magnitude of value in Sections 1
and 2) and then deriving money and prices as the necessary form of
appearance of value in Section 3).

So in the rest of Capital, when Marx says the ?value? of commodities,
without qualification, he could be talking about any one of these three
dimensions.  After Chapter 1, when Marx says ?value? without
qualification, he usually means the form of appearance of value or
prices.  To take a key example, in Chapter 7 of Volume 1, the ?value?
of 20 lbs. of yarn is 30 shillings.  It would be cumbersome to repeat
every time:  ?the form of appearance of the value of 20 lbs. of yarn is
30 shillings?.  So he abbreviated it down to:  ?the value of 20 lbs. of
yarn is 30 shillings?.  But it is clear from the context that he is
talking about the form of appearance of value.

Similarly, in Chapter 1 of Volume 3, which you asked about, when Marx
says that the ?value of the commodities is $600?, he means the form of
appearance of value.  And he compares this form of appearance of value
with the cost price of the commodities ($500).  In these passages, he
could not mean the substance or the magnitude of value, which are in
units of labor-time, and thus cannot be compared with the cost price,
which is in units of money.

Comradely,
Fred


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.