[OPE-L:4879] Re: ideal vs real value

Chai-on Lee (conlee@chonnam.chonnam.ac.kr)
Sun, 27 Apr 1997 22:58:09 -0700 (PDT)

[ show plain text ]

At 07:15 97-04-26 -0700, Jerry wrote:

>Listmembers will recall that one of the issues of dispute regarding this
>thread (and its predecessors called "four-cornered triangle" and "value
>vs. potential value") concerns the so-called "conservation of value"
>principle which holds that the magnitude of value is determined in
>production and can not be increased *or decreased* in circulation. How do
>those who believe in that principle reconcile it with the following
>passage?:
>
> *********

Chai-on:

I intended to intervene on the above subject but had little time to do so.
But I am doing it now.

Value is a social substance in principle. Therefore, it could be odd to
increase or decrease in the process of circulation, for the social relation
is in the unity of production and exchange.
Nevertheless, however, Marx said value is a potential existence prior to
exchange, and is realised after the exchange. Why? Because value cannot
exist autonomously, it needs a container, a recepticle. If the recepticle,
a use-value, is cracked, the value can decrease or lost depending on the
situation of the use-value (the container). Exchange can only verify if the
use-value is socially useful. If it is useful, the value becomes a real
value. If not socially useful, the already produced value simply disappears
or is lost for the capitalist.

I wonder why this is not so clear to others (especially to Mike William)?

Comradely,

Chai-on