[OPE-L:5666] Re: Re: Re: Re: Marx's theory as a quantitative theory

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Fri May 25 2001 - 12:57:20 EDT

In yet another excellent post (5654) Fred wrote:

>Section 1 derives the content (or "substance") of value - abstract labor -
>as the common substance of commodities that determines their
>exchange-values.  The title of Section 1 is: "The Two Factors of the
>Commodity: Use-Value and Value (SUBSTANCE of Value, Magnitude of
>Value)."  (p. 125; emphasis added). 
>After his derivation of abstract labor, Marx remarked: "The progress of
>our investigation will lead us back to exchange-value as the necessary
>mode of expression, or FORM of appearance, of value.  For the present,
>however, we must first consider the nature of value INDEPENDENTLY OF ITS
>FORM of appearance."  (p 128; emphasis added).

Fred, thumbing through the first part the other day, I noticed that 
Marx initially derives abstract labor as a residue but then 
redetermines it more positively.  Patrick Murray has also argued that 
the derivation of the substance of abstract labor is  incomplete in 
Section I.

So I am asking whether you think the derivation of abstract labor is 
complete in section 1? How is the derivation supplemented? Does the 
supplementation change the character of the initial derivation (as 
Murray has argued)?

Best, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:08 EDT