File spoon-archives/marxism-thaxis.archive/marxism-thaxis_1997/marxism-thaxis.9710, message 98


Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:17:38 -0500
From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood-AT-panix.com>
Subject: M-TH: Re: M-I: Value and Women's Unpaid Work


Siddharth Chatterjee wrote:

>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.
>
>And you will grant that without this concept, and a clear understanding
>of it, the entire gigantic edifice collapses. I will get back to you
>about this topic and your last post after doing some study (which
>may take some time). In the meanwhile, I am curious as to what Doug and
>Rakesh think about this matter.

I've largely avoided getting into value theory, except in the most general
fashion, because it almost always ends up in fruitless theological disputes
of the sort developing here. By "the most general sense," I mean an
understanding of exploited labor (in conjunction with exploited nature) as
the source of value, of the role of competition in enforcing socially
necessary labor time, of the redistribution of value through price/market
mechanisms, etc. - i.e., mental models for understanding the deep structure
of capitalism. When you develop it beyond that stage, and even start trying
to put numbers on it, I think you get lost in a labyrinth from which there
is no escape.

Doug





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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005