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.
Tom, could you give the full quote?
Jim Devine
[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
"...the common substance that manifests itself in the exchange-value of
commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their value. The
progress of our
investigation will show that exchange-value is the only form in
which the value
of commodities can manifest itself or be expressed. For
Charles Brown wrote,
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.
Remember, though, "A commodity appears at first sight
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/21/00 12:22PM
Charles Brown wrote,
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.
Remember,
Mat Forstater wrote,
I don't see either one as short-hand for the other. Exchange-value is the
expression of value.
Correct. However, Marx _used_ exchange-value as an abbreviation, _said_ he
had used it as an abbreviation but then pointed out that, strictly
speaking, it was wrong to do so. I
