From: Hans G. Ehrbar (ehrbar@LISTS.ECON.UTAH.EDU)
Date: Wed Mar 02 2005 - 08:26:57 EST
Philip, your Cantillon quote > ... cependant dans cet essai je me suis toujours servi du > terme de valeur intrinseque, pour fixer la quantite de > terre & du travail qui entre dans la production des > choses... is, in English: > ... however in this essay I have always used the term of > "valeur intrinseque" for fixing the quantity of earth and > labor which enters the production of things ... With this meaning, the word "valeur intrinseque" would certainly be translated as "value" by Marx, not as "exchange-value". Therefore this would be an argument against my interpretation. I just looked at the first edition of *Capital*, in which Marx's sentence with the parenthetical valeur intrinseque is identical to the fourth edition, the only difference being that the word "Relatives" is emphasized. The last footnote before this passage, footnote 6 to the previous sentence, says: > "La *valeur* consiste dans *le rapport d'echange* qui se > trouve entre telle chose et tell autre, entre telle mesure > d'une production et telle mesure d'une autre." *Le > Trosne: "De L'Interet Social". Physiocrates. ed. Daire.* > Paris 1846. p. 889. In English, this is: > "The *value* consists in *the exchange proportion* between > one thing and another, between this amount of one product > and that of another." Here the French word "valeur" is clearly used for something which Marx himself would call "exchange-value." It would be interesting to know if Le Trosne, after having giving this definition, uses the term "valeur intrinseque" in "De L'Interet Social". Hans.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 03 2005 - 00:00:00 EST