>CB: Actually,I think Marx's exact formulation with the terms "value" and
>"substance" is in the heading of the first page of _Capital_, Use-value is
>the substance of value.
Right, but this doesn't mean there's a substance in the philosophical sense of a self subsistence entity or kind of being in which properties inhere. Brad's thought is that MArx thought that value is sort of spectral goo created by labor which becomes part of the physical constitution of commodities. This is a toral misconception. Value is a relational property that commodities have in virtue of being produced in a generalized market system that makes the amount of labor time expended onm them important in various ways.
jks
>
>SECTION 1
>THE TWO FACTORS OF A COMMODITY:
>USE-VALUE AND VALUE
>(THE SUBSTANCE OF VALUE AND THE MAGNITUDE OF VALUE)
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production
>prevails, presents itself as "an immense accumulation of commodities," [1]
>its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin
>with the analysis of a commodity.
>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S1
>
>CB: Then he refers to "social substance"
>
>Let us now consider the residue of each of these products; it consists of
>the same unsubstantial reality in each, a mere congelation of homogeneous
>human labour, of labour-power expended without regard to the mode of its
>expenditure. All that these things now tell us is, that human labour-power
>has been expended in their production, that human labour is embodied in
>them. When looked at as crystals of this social substance, common to them
>all, they are ¯ Values.
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx