[OPE-L:6936] value-form

From: Andrew Brown (Andrew@lubs.leeds.ac.uk)
Date: Mon Apr 08 2002 - 07:22:41 EDT

Hello all,

Re: many recent posts on VFT. Can I ask if the following summary 
of 'value' in VFT is correct:

When first posited within the systematic presenation, 'value' is a 
predicate, under which the class of all purchased inputs and 
outputs of production is subsumed. This predicate is introduced as 
a necessary condition of existence of dissociation (i.e. as 
necessary to association). 

This gives us the 'commodity' as unity of use value and value. The 
answer to the question 'what is value?' is at this stage simply that 
'value is a *name* given to all products by people in capitalist 
society'. We can elaborate upon this answer further. Since value is 
a predicate, then it is valid to say that the class of objects to which 
this predicate is applicable, viz. all purchased inputs to and outputs 
of production, are 'values'. (And, indeed, they instantiate the 'value-
form' and are 'forms of value'). This is because the notion of a 
'predicate' always implies at least two aspects: the object referred 
to (the 'referent') and the name by which the object is referred to.

[An aside: I wonder where the notion of 'sense' fits in, a la Frege's 
sense / reference distinction]

We will learn more about value and capitalism only through 
developing the systematic presentation. In this further systematic 
development we learn that 'money' must exist. At the outset, 
money, too, is a predicate this time denoting a commodity, or 
simply a bit of paper, or whatever, for which all commodities 
(excluding the money commodity, should it exist) are exchanged. 

We later learn that 'capital' must exist.

Am I right so far?

Many thanks,


PS I got the notion of value as a 'predicate' (when it is first 
introduced into the systematic presentation) from Michael 
Williams, who suggested this in previous discussions on OPEL.

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