[OPE-L:3544] Re: money-capital as initial givens

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@phoenix.Princeton.EDU)
Date: Wed Jun 28 2000 - 16:00:54 EDT

[ show plain text ]

Re 3543

> 2. This interpretation is further supported by the logical structure of
> Parts 1, 2, and 3 of Volume 1 of Capital. In Part 1, money is derived as
> the necessary form of appearance of the value of commodities.

If by "the necessary form of appearance", you mean that value only passes
from potentiae into actuality in the form of its market established money
price, then how can you determine the total mass of surplus value before
relative prices are established in the market.
If the Sraffian interpretation assumes that capital initially appears in
production as physical inputs, don't you assume that the total
mass of surplus value also first appears in production apparently as a
specific quantity of use values the value of which is determined
independently of and previous to its circulation?

Yet if money price is "the necessary form of appearance of value"--and it
is this phrase I must ask you to clarify (it seems to me more Aristotlean
than Hegelian, and I have been arguing that value has no kind of
existence or reality before successful exchange)--then how can this
yet-to-be-sold physical output be said to represent surplus value before

> observation: capital exists here as yet only as a GIVEN QUANTUM OF VALUE =
> M (MONEY), in which all use-value is extinguished, so that nothing but the
> monetary form remains... If the ORIGINAL CAPITAL IS A QUANTUM OF VALUE =

I would have italicized what remains in the middle of what you have

Yours, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 30 2000 - 00:00:04 EDT