On Tuesday, Paul wrote: > ... What I take [Marx] to be saying here [in the famous 1868 letter to > Kugelman] is that the 'law of value' is the law of the proportionate > distribution of social labour, that this is a natural law which can not be > done away with. Only the form of its appearance can change.<
this suggests that there are _two_ meanings for the phrase "law of value": one refers to "the state of society where the interconnection of social labor is manifested in the private exchange of the individual products of labor" (Marx, describing commodity production) and the other to human society _in general_. I don't find it worthwhile to argue about the meaning of words, so I won't do so. But I do have a question: if we're using a "law of value" to describe a system that does not produce commodities, how can the value of money be relevant at all? is it simply formal money of account (used in accounting)? -- Jim Devine / If you're going to support the lesser of two evils, you should at least know the nature of that evil. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
