On Mon, 30 Aug 1999 13:25:47 Thomas Waters wrote:
>I'm using the word value in Marx's sense, "the common substance that
>manifests itself in the exchange value of commodities." Since objects must
>possess use-value before they exchange as commodities, value does not
>precede but follows use-value, both temporally and ontically.
...it seems that you are implying that commodities arrive to the market without values which will make Marx a supported of the quantity theory of money...
>The substance of the value of a fact-related commodity is the labor that
>went into creating it. This includes the labor of the teacher, the printer,
>or the clerks and other workers necessary to establish and regulate the
>legal right to use the knowledge of the fact
...you are confusing concrete with abstract labor. It the latter category which is the substance of value, not the other way around making Marx a post-Ricardian...
(pobre Carlitos!!!)
Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com