>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/21/00 10:54AM >>> Originally, Charles Brown (CB) wrote: > >CB: Do you happen to recall where Marx makes the distinction between > >"exchange value" and "value" ? I thought "value" was shorthand for > >"exchange value" in _Capital_. Jim Devine suggested a passage on page 128 (vintage) 38 (progress). The explicit distinction is on page 152/66. Marx is clear in stating that value and its magnitude DO NOT originate in exchange value, they are "expressed" in exchange value. ((((((((((( CB: Agree. Value and its magnitude originate in LABOR, abstract labour. (((((((((( He also apologizes for misleading the reader at the beginning of the chapter by saying that "a commodity is a use-value and an exchange-value" but he excuses the abbreviation as harmless ONCE WE KNOW the subtle distinction between value, which is embodied in the commodity, and exchange-value, which is manifested only in a relationship with a second commodity of a different kind. ((((((((((( CB: Agree. Throughout most of the text of _Capital_, "value" is shorthand for exchange-value, after the initial definition regarding exchange-value and use-value is made. Most of _Capital_ is a discussion of exchange-value , not use-value. ))))))))) Rather than value being a shorthand for exchange-value, Marx used exchange-value as a shorthand for value! ((((((((( CB: Sort of , except it would be "exchange-value" is LONGhand for "value". Though most of the book "value" is used. But "value" can be used to refer to "use-value" too. Value in the sense of "wealth" is in the form of commodities, and commodities are bundles of exchange-value and use-value.
