[OPE-L:5850] Re: Re: form and content re value-form and abstract labour

From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Mon Jun 11 2001 - 00:57:53 EDT

On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Andrew Brown wrote:

> Fred,
> Thanks for your reply.  I think 'entity' is too stong. But if we 
> substitute 'aspect' for 'entity'  I would go along with what you say. 
> Ie. abstract labour are distinct aspects of value (and hence 
> 'distinguishable'). Of course, I think there is alot more to the 
> qualitative side of all this (viz. 'congealment', immediate opposition, 
> mediate identity, and other such difficult stuff) but I can accept 
> what you say, with the substitution suggested above. And I agree 
> with you about the profound importance this has for grapsing the 
> quantitative side of value. 

Hi Andy,

Thanks very much for your reply.

Why is "entity too strong", in your view?  
What is the difference between "entity" and "aspect"?

Do you interpret "entity" to connote "independent existence" and thus no
necessary connection?

I interpret entity to simply mean a "something distinct from other
identities", even though there may be necessary connections between these
distinct identities.

Whatever difference there might be between entity and aspect would seem to
be very small.  We seem to agree on the main points - that abstract labor
determines prices and therefore that abstract exits as a "distinct
magnitude" (defined in units of labor-time) from money, and that the
distinct existence of abstract labor as a magnitude is necessary in order
to provide a quantitative theory of value and surplus-value.  

Thanks again for the very productive discussion.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:29 EDT