[OPE-L:43] [OPE-L:272] Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Chapter 1 and accumulation

C. J. Arthur (cjarthur@pavilion.co.uk)
Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:48:42 +0000

Steve writes
>To say that the $ value of 2 apples = $ value of 3 oranges, is just to
>express the exchange of apples for oranges and both for dollars in a common
>unit of account by deciding on the dollar as the numeraire. One could, of
>course, just as easily speak of the apple price of dollars and the apple
>price of oranges, etc.
It occurs to me that those who argue that even with RST all we have is an
'equivalence relation', which does not signify any inherent value of the
commodities is being expressed in it, are very close to the position of Sam
Bailey who insisted value was purely relative and that money was only a
common point of reference.
Marx got irritated with Bailey in TSV and his final reply one can see near
the beginning of book two where he argues that with M-C-M it is clear that
a value is being referred to itself not to some other thing and that this
justified talk of a value that existed as more than an equivalence
relation but as a substance capable of accumulating.
This of course ties up with my general position that we are not going to
solve the problem of value at the level of chapter 1; it has to be refered
to the fully developd value form, namely the capital relation.
I would like to know from Steve what he thinks accumulates when we speak
of the capitalist accumulation process.

Chris Arthur