Date: Mon Oct 03 2005 - 07:43:40 EDT
Chris, 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 Materialism) 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