“Marx’s theory of value and money. A critique of Reuten’s ‘value-form’ interpretation of part 1 on volume 1 of Capital”: Fred Moseley
How then is the magnitude of value to be measured? By means of the ‘value-forming substance’, the labour, contained in the article. The quantity is measured by its duration, and the labour-time itself is measured on the particular scale of hours, days, etc. (C.I. 129).
Socially necessary labour-time is the labour-time required to produce any use-value under the conditions of production normal for a given society and with the average degree of skill and intensity of labour prevalent in that society. (C.I. 129)
A given quantity of any commodity contains a definite quantity of human labour. Therefore the form of value must not only express value in general, but also quantitatively determined value; i.e. the magnitude of value… The equation 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, or 20 years of linen are worth 1 coat, presupposes the presence in 1 coat of exactly as much of the substance of value as there is in 20 yards of linen, implies therefore that the quantities in which the two commodities are present have cost the same amount of labour or the same quantity of labour-time. (C.I. 144)
It is not money that renders commodities commensurable. Quite the contrary. Because all commodities, as values, are objectified human labour and therefore themselves commensurable, their values can be communally measured in one and the same commodity. Money is the necessary form of appearance of the measure of value immanent in commodities – labor-time. (C.I. 188)
Gold becomes the measure of value because the exchange-value of all commodities is measured in gold, is expressed in the relation of a definite quantity of gold and a definite quantity of commodity containing equal amounts of labour-time. (Contribution, 65-66)
According to the general law of value, a definite quantity of money expresses a definite quantity of materialised labour. (Selected Correspondence, 98-99)
Please note: Throughout this paper, original emphasis in quotations is in italics, and added emphasis is in bold. Phrases in brackets [ ] are also added. Leer más…
La lógica de El capital y el concepto de Valor
Analicemos la diferencia de principio que existe entre el proceso de deducción de las categorías de El capital y la deducción lógica formal. Es decir, investiguemos la esencia concreta del método de ascender de lo abstracto a lo concreto.
En Ricardo, el concepto de valor, categoría universal del sistema de la ciencia, es una categoría que, además de ser incompleta tiene un carácter formal y, por tanto, no es correcta. Ricardo no se propone aún investigar el valor especialmente, en una abstracción distinta de las demás categorías, ya que ve en él una expresión de lo general y abstracto propio de cada una de las categorías desarrolladas y de cada fenómeno concreto que abarca este concepto.
Así pues, en las distinciones teóricas de la categorías universal de partida y en los modos de su definición se encierra ya, como en embrión, toda la diferencia entre la deducción de categorías por el metafísico Ricardo y el método de ascensión de lo abstracto a lo concreto usado por el dialéctico Marx. Leer más…
“Lenin renewed authentic Marxism not least by a recourse to the “core” of the Hegelian dialectic (“Contradiction is the root of all movement and life”) and to the selfsame Hegelian Logic…Thus it was precisely orthodox Marxism, restored by Lenin, which presupposed a knowledge of Hegel; as against a vulgar, traditionless, and schematic Marxism which, in isolating Marx — as if his thought emerged like a shot out of a pistol — isolated itself from Marx.”
Ernst Bloch (1962 , 382-83)
“He did not read or study Hegel seriously until 1914-15. Also, if one considers it objectively, one notices a great difference in tone and content between the Notebooks on the Dialectic and Materialism and Empirio-Criticism. Lenin’s thought becomes supple, alive …in a word, dialectical. Lenin did not fully understand the dialectic until 1914, after the collapse of the International… Here we see the significance of the profound reticence of the Stalinists toward the Notebooks, who for a long time put them aside in favor of Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.”
Henri Lefebvre (1959, 85)
“The emphasis that Lenin put on “dialectic proper, as a philosophic science” separated him from all other post-Marx Marxists, not only up to the Russian Revolution but also after the conquest of power… What was most manifest of what he had gained from the 1914-15 Hegel studies was that the Hegelian dialectic needs to be studied “in and for itself”…That Lenin kept his direct encounter with the Hegelian dialectic — his Abstract of Hegel’s Science of Logic — to himself, however, shows the depth of the economist mire into which the whole Second International, and not just the German Social-Democracy, had sunk; revolutionaries stood on the same ground!”
Raya Dunayevskaya (1991 , 116)