[OPE-L] Kuruma on value detour

[Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: Kuruma on value detour

Kuruma writes:


Rather, the linen posits the coat with form of value by

> saying that the coat is equal to itself, so that the natural form of the coat, as is, expresses value. The value of linen is thus expressed for the first time in distinction from its use-value, using the natural form of the coat.

This is what Marx calls the  $B!H (Jdetour $B!I (J of
value-_expression_.

Marx writes in a perplexing and often ignored footnote:

"In a sort of way, it is with man as with commodities. Since he comes into the world neither with a looking glass in his hand, nor as a Fichtian philosopher, to whom "I am I" is sufficient, man first sees and recognises himself in other men. Peter only establishes his own identity as a man by first comparing himself with Paul as being of like kind. And thereby Paul, just as he stands in his Pauline personality,
becomes to Peter the type of the genus homo."

So rephrasing this in Kuruma's language:

Peter posits Paul as typical of the genus homo by saying that Paul is like himself, so that Paul, as is, expresses the human essence. The human Dasein or esse or identity of Peter is thus expressed for the first time in distinction from his corporal existence, using Paul as the natural form of the human Dasein or esse or identity.

What's the point of this apparent word play? First, I think Marx wants to establish that gold becomes the general equivalent because commodities express their respective values in it. Several steps are needed to both to establish the nature and implications of Marx's critique of monetary fetishism.

Secondly, Marx wants to show as Hegel did in Philosophy of Right that though civil society seems to be individualistic such that each only pursues his own interest, value is nonetheless only expressed by way of social relation (the magnitude of value is also socially determined). Existence is socially mediated; it is not direct. The meaning of detour here suggests mediation, another Hegelian category of course.

Again several steps are needed. No time now. Of course unlike Hegel Marx did not think that once we became aware of our social interdependence the behavior of bourgeois man could then simply change to reflect his new dialectical understanding of his sociality. Marx was not an idealist as he makes clear in the section on commodity fetishism.

In short, to tease out the meaning of the above footnote which is what Kuruma is importantly doing we have to understand which illusions about money and the apparently absolute subjective freedom of civil society Marx was critiquing.

Needless to say, even most Marxists don't understand  what was important to Marx. Kuruma is of course an important exception.

Rakesh