Re: [OPE-L] Ricardo and Marx on embodiment

From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Mon Oct 03 2005 - 07:43:40 EDT


Hmmm... I had wondered whether you were going to jump in on this one.
Glad you did.

So,  I gather you would agree with my suggestion that whether it is
translated as "embodied" or "congealed" or "crystallized",  Marx is
presenting the same concept.  If that's the case then I think you
agree with me that whatever other differences existed between Ricardo
and Marx on the subject of value, the differences can not be
expressed as 'embodiment' (Ricardo) vs. 'congealment' (Marx).

In solidarity, Jerry

[Chris wrote:]
In support of my view that all physicalist metaphors are no more than that
may I point out that using the English translation involves the physicalist
prejudices of the translator eg: (From my last piece in Historical
All English translations are defective in offering Oembodiment¹ as the
translation of 'Darstellung' in the context of Marx¹s first chapter. Very
occasionally Marx does speak of Oembodied labour¹, but nearly always the
term is Darstellung. The labour of the worker is Darstellung in the value
of the product, that is, Opresented there¹. ORepresentation¹ is inadequate
here because it suggests a mere appearance form of something going on
elsewhere. But Opresentation¹ I think avoids this. Value does not just
represent abstract labour, it is the mode in which it becomes socially
objective, i.e. really present. In the same way money is the mode in which
value as universal is presented, not represented as if it already exists
somewhere else.
What we have is a social objectivity but not a physical objectivity.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 04 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT