The simple/elementary form of value considered as a whole (was Re:Charlie Andrew's book)

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> timework@xxxxxxxxx 09/21/00 10:54AM >>>
Originally, Charles Brown (CB) wrote:
> >CB:  Do you happen to recall where Marx makes the distinction between
> >"exchange value" and "value" ?  I thought "value" was shorthand for
> >"exchange value" in _Capital_.

Jim Devine suggested a passage on page 128 (vintage) 38 (progress). The
explicit distinction is on page 152/66. Marx is clear in stating that
value and its magnitude DO NOT originate in exchange value, they are
"expressed" in exchange value.

(((((((((((

CB: Agree. Value and its magnitude originate in LABOR, abstract labour.
((((((((((


He also apologizes for misleading
the reader at the beginning of the chapter by saying that "a commodity is
a use-value and an exchange-value" but he excuses the abbreviation as
harmless ONCE WE KNOW the subtle distinction between value, which is
embodied in the commodity, and exchange-value, which is manifested only in
a relationship with a second commodity of a different kind.

(((((((((((

CB: Agree. Throughout most of the text of _Capital_, "value" is shorthand for exchange-value, after the initial definition regarding exchange-value and use-value is made.  Most of _Capital_ is a discussion of exchange-value , not use-value.

)))))))))



Rather than value being a shorthand for exchange-value, Marx used
exchange-value as a shorthand for value!

(((((((((

CB: Sort of , except it would be "exchange-value" is LONGhand for "value".

 Though most of the book "value" is used. But "value" can be used to refer to "use-value" too.   Value in the sense of "wealth" is in the form of commodities, and commodities are bundles of exchange-value and use-value.