[EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/20/00 05:38PM
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_.
I wrote:
For example, in the first section of
I wrote:
Carbon is the common substance or factor in diamonds, pure coal, and Bucky
balls. It is manifested in them. But we can't say that diamonds, pure
coal, and Bucky balls are equal to Carbon. We can't use "Carbon" as
short-hand for them. Rather, they are different forms of Carbon.
saith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/21/00 04:13PM
I wrote:
Carbon is the common substance or factor in diamonds, pure coal, and Bucky
balls. It is manifested in them. But we can't say that diamonds, pure
coal, and Bucky balls are equal to Carbon. We can't use "Carbon" as
short-hand for them. Rather, they
At 16:11 19/09/00 -0700, you wrote:
I've only read the first 2 1/2 chapters of Charles (Charlie) Andrews'
recent book, _From Capitalism to Equality_ (Needle Press, 2000), but so
far I am quite impressed.
One advantage he has compared to Marx is that he makes it clear from the
beginning
One advantage he has compared to Marx is that he makes it clear from
the beginning that exchange value is not the same as value. "The
magnitude of value is the quantity of abstract labor required to
_produce_ a commodity. The magnitude of exchange value, or price, is the
amount of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/19/00 07:11PM
I really like the discussion of value in chapter 2. Andrews distinguishes
clearly between use-value, exchange value (relative prices), and value
(socially-necessary abstract labor time). I knew the distinction, but it
was fuzzy at times.
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_.
For example, in the first section of ch. 1 of vol. 1, Marx writes that "if
we abstract from their value, there remains
JD I wish Marx had been clearer about this. Andrews is, though he
presents the
issue very differently than I do here. One of the great things about
Andrews' book is that he seems to say everything that Marx said, but in a
different order that makes everything clearer. Following the 20th century
I want to say that the discussion of Charlie's book is very encouraging. I
have only seen some early drafts of the book, but they were already excellent.
I think that it is important to discuss and encourage each other's work, but
now I have to sign off and go on to Sacramento for the day.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/20/00 02:46PM
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_.
For example, in the first section of ch. 1 of vol. 1, Marx writes that "if
we
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_.
I wrote:
For example, in the first section of ch. 1 of vol. 1, Marx writes that
"if
I've only read the first 2 1/2 chapters of Charles (Charlie) Andrews'
recent book, _From Capitalism to Equality_ (Needle Press, 2000), but so far
I am quite impressed.
So far, it's the clearest expositions of volume I of Marx's _Capital_ I've
read. It's not just an exposition, of course,
12 matches
Mail list logo
