Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 07:21:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gerald Levy <glevy-AT-pratt.edu>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Re: M-I: Value and Women's Unpaid Work


Siddharth Chatterjee wrote:

> Hugh,
> I think that you have made an error of gigantic proportion by tying
> the value of a commodity to its exchange value. Value is one
> determinant of exchange value (or exchange value presupposes value)
> but not vice versa. That, you of all people who understand political
> economy (the main pillar of Marxism which this list sadly lacks) quite
> well, have made this error is truly astounding and is a testimony to
> the difficulty we *still* face when encountering this fundamental concept.

By Marx's definition, a commodity must have use-value, value, and (that 
value must come to be expressed via) the value-form (exchange-value). If
Hugh was in "error" when he tied value to exchange-value (and use-value),
then Marx made the same "error."

> In the meanwhile, I am curious as to what Doug and
> Rakesh think about this matter.

Doug prefers more "modern" concepts to value theory. 

Jerry



     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---