[OPE-L:5682] Re: Re: Re: Response to Fred - 1

From: Rakesh Narpat Bhandari (rakeshb@Stanford.EDU)
Date: Tue May 29 2001 - 13:57:34 EDT

re Nicky's 5679

>The existence of the market (a more concrete
>determination of the value-form as mode of association) does *not*
>therefore transcend the contradiction posed by dissociation, but shows
>value that it cannot exist for itself (independently of price).

Yes, Marx's value theory aims from the very first part of Capital 1 
to illuminate the contradictions of capitalist production. For Marx 
the law of value is not a law of equilibrium, as even Rubin 
maintained (Fred doubtless knows that Mattick Sr took issue with 
Rubin on this).  Ajit has argued that in the first part Marx works 
from a Walrasian problematic; Fred now suggests that Marx had 
interest in equilibrium values.  But as we learn in part I,  the 
possibility of crisis inheres in the separation or contradiction 
between individual and general abstract social labor--it is this 
polarization that Marx attempts to lay bare; moreover, the money 
commodity (or its symbolic substitutes) having become (as Chris A 
recently underlined) value or general abstract social labor 
itself--rather than simply a means of circulation or a numeraire--can 
under determinate conditions be valued in itself, thereby causing the 
networks of generalized commodity trade to collapse.

Yours, Rakesh

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