[OPE-L:1804] Re: Definitions of value

chaion lee (conlee@chonnam.chonnam.ac.kr)
Mon, 15 Apr 1996 19:56:10 -0700

[ show plain text ]

Duncan raised a question,
Doesn't value have an immediate phenomenal form as the money value of a
collection of commodities?

If we understand the "immediate phenomenal form" as a form whose phenomenon is not distinct from its nature (or from its essence). Then, the answer should be "No". A collection of commodities represent its value in the form of money value but
the money form is not the immediate value form. Because some conceive it as the immediate form, they argue money is a purely numerical account. The labor theory of value must explain how and why the value represent itself as another, which is the
core of the transformation problem. IMO, money is also a commodity and the sole difference between money and any other ordinary commodity is in its functions as the general equivalence. I would like to continue the discussion on the nature of money. r>