Re: Money, mind and the ontological status of value

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Thu Jun 17 2004 - 13:16:13 EDT

Howard Engelskirchen <howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM> said, on 06/17/04:

>To work within the framework of a coherent theory in science and to
>appropriate its method and results to use is not "falling back on
>authority."  Marx's argument that exchange value is a form of
>manifestation of value is made in Chapter 1.  I make use of it.  What part
>of that analysis do you want to open?

  Howard, Sorry, but have you understood any of what I've been asking?  To say that "exchange value is a form of manifestation of value" would never immediately claim that ALL exchange value is a form of manifestation of value.  Marx did not say "ALL ..."  It may or may not be delimited to the object of *Capital*, namely the capitalist mode of production.  That's the issue.  I have been posing the question of its applicability outside that mode of production (why do you still need to ask what I "want to open"?).  As far as I am concerned, to suggest that Marx or Marxism "establishes" (citing yourself) that you are correct is unworthy of the level of discussion this list should be engaged in, as it is simply relying on 'authority'.

>>   Try to look at it from my point of view for a moment: what could I
>possibly do with such an assertion?  Apologize?

>I don't have any idea what 'apologize' refers to or for what, and I am
>definitely puzzled by your point of view.

  Asserting that you are correct because Marxist theory "establishes" it, leaves me no option but to apologize for the error of my ways.  (I'm being to feel a whiff of the 1930s.)

>>   You did not understand my posting.  I wrote, "if you accept the
>distinction [between the real object and the theoretical object], you need
>to offer a way to make it 'work' in practice."  Specifically, you have
>been swimming around the issue of whether value is a real object or a
>theoretical object.  At one point you said it was a real object, then you
>backed off a bit.  But no closure came in that discussion.  So, I now ask
>in your >
>>   if EV, then V
>>   EV exists
>>   Therefore V
>> is V a real object or a theoretical object?  (It is clear that EV is
>considered real because you wrote EV "exists"; you aren't as clear about
>V.) >

>The argument is meant to establish that value existed as a real object in
>the ancient world.

>The concepts of 'value' or the 'social relation of value' or the 'social
>substance of value' are theoretical objects.  The concept of a 'real
>object' is a theoretical object.

>The social relation of value is a real object;  the social substance of
>value is a real object.

>With respect, your impression that I am confused about the distinction
>between real and theoretical objects is wrong.

  In your reply, value is both a real object and a theoretical object.  You are having your cake and eating it, too.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 22 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT