Andrew, you are correct in so far as you go. Marx did sys, as you said, that
"he only basis
for their exchange, since they are otherwise differentiated (which is why
their exchange is desirable), is the labor they contain." However, he qualifies
that approach in
Volume 3.
"Austin, Andrew" wrote:
> I haven't touched on this matter in quite a while, but I recall in the
> Results of the Immediate Process of Production Marx arguing that
> exchange-value acquires a form independent of its use-value as the pure form
> of materialized social labor-time. Moreover, in Capital I, doesn't he
> distinguish between use-value (a thing that is useful, a value independent
> of the labor that produced it) and exchange-value, with the latter being
> use-values that exchange with one another? It follows that the only basis
> for their exchange, since they are otherwise differentiated (which is why
> their exchange is desirable), is the labor they contain. Under capitalism
> this labor takes the form of labor-power (a commodity), which Marx
> generalizes (as abstract labor) to the totality social labor (for
> equivalency). If I am remembering this correctly, what is wrong with what I
> wrote previously?
>
> Andrew Austin
> Green Bay, WI
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2000 10:00 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: RE: Marx and Nature
>
> No, he did not. Although he did not elaborate on the reasons until the
> 3rd volume.
>
> "Austin, Andrew" wrote:
>
> > Didn't Marx argue that labor-power was the measure of exchange-value?
> >
> > Andrew Austin
> > Green Bay, WI
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
