[OPE-L:6870] Re: Re: value-form

From: Andrew Brown (Andrew@lubs.leeds.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Apr 03 2002 - 08:19:02 EST

Thanks Jerry,

So would it be fair to qualify your original statement by saying that 
we have an identity *of opposites* (value and money), rather than a 
mere identity?

For completeness, could you indicate what 'value' is, on your 

Re repetition: I found your succinct account very helpful whether or 
not it has been repeated in the past. Also, it seems unlikely that 
people do repeat themselves too often on the topic: value is such a 
difficult topic that any individual's grasp of it may well continually be 

Best wishes,


From:           	"gerald_a_levy" <gerald_a_levy@msn.com>
To:             	<ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
Subject:        	[OPE-L:6868] Re: value-form
Date sent:      	Wed, 3 Apr 2002 07:37:36 -0500
Send reply to:  	ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu

> Re [6867]:
> > Hello Jerry,
> Hi Andy.
> > This notion of 'identity' puzzles me. If value *is* money, then what 
> > is the value-*form*? 
> I'll let one of  our VFT comrades answer your question concerning
> their perspectives. 
> For myself, I would express the relation as follows:
> Within a system of generalized commodity production and exchange,
> commodities are defined by the duality of use-value and value where
> the value-form is a necessary form of appearance of value and money
> is a necessary form of appearance of the value-form. Thus, value, the
> value-form, and money are all necessarily linked to each other and to 
> the commodity.  I guess that means I have a "single-system" (as
> distinct from a "dual system") interpretation.
> So that we don't all repeat ourselves endlessly, is there anybody that 
> wants to say something about this topic that they have _not_ said before 
> on this list? 
> In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:08 EDT