Re: [OPE-L] Marx's Form of Analysis

From: John Milios (jmilios@HOL.GR)
Date: Wed Feb 16 2005 - 22:33:49 EST

-----Original Message-----
From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Howard
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Marx's Form of Analysis

Norice that value is an unobservable -- it does not, cannot appear.
Therefore it is manifested by means of forms of appearance (exchange value,
money).  But, following Aristotle, a very different sort of form makes it
what it is -- this is value's constitutive form, its nature or essence, and
what that is, following Bettelheim, I've explained on the list before.  This
can be give a fully contemporary gloss by attention to the way scientific
realism approaches questions of real definition -- we can express the causal
structure that characterizes the nature of value in terms of its
constitutive form.


----- Original Message -----
From: <Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 5:51 PM
Subject: [OPE-L] Marx's Form of Analysis

> Hi again Phil:
> > I am not sure I understand this. You say and I query in brackets:
> > the value-form [exchange-value?]
> * Yes.
> >  is a necessary form of appearance of value and the money-form
> > [?money]
> * Yes.
> > is a necessary form of appearance of the value-form [exchange
> > value?];
> * Yes.
> > hence value, use-value [how did use-value get in, as the necessary
> > form of appearance of money/money-form?],
> *  Use-value is a category required for the existence of value, it is
>     a 'constituent' of value.
>     ||| no use-value => no value;  no use-value => no exchange value
> |||
> > exchange-value, and
> > money are all "intrinsic" to the commodity-form).
> > [PD] I think what is needed here is a lengthy study of the various
> > in which Marx used thr term form.
> Yes, I think that would be an excellent topic to discuss.
> I believe that Marx used the term value-form in more than one sense:
> one is the sense you referred to, the other was meant to mean
> exchange-value.  Value-form theory (VFT), which utilizes form
> _analysis_, refers to the former.
> Perhaps a way of discussing that topic would be to consider the
> various senses in which form was used _prior to_ Marx (e.g. in Hegel)
> and then to consider how Marx's usage was similar to and different
> from prior usage.
> You know something about Aristotle, I recall.  What were the various
> senses in which Aristotle used the term form? (I'll cc Michael E
> because that's a topic that he should know about as well and  I don't
> know how often he reads posts).
> Who first developed the expression "form analysis"?
> > As to use-value, someone once said that for Marx value was King but
> > use-value was Lord High Everything Else.  Does anyone recall who
> > sais that?
> The Marx associated with the expression "Lord High Everything Else"
> was none other than  -- you bet your life -- Graucho.  So, whoever
> said the above was playfully mixing Marxs.
> In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 18 2005 - 00:00:02 EST