[Marxism] Sorry that should have had Heinrich on the subject line

Angelus Novus fuerdenkommunismus at yahoo.com
Sat Feb 16 12:13:28 MST 2013


William Cockshott wrote:

> but in the book I am reviewing Heinrich only presents one quote to support > his interpretation that monetary demand is a condition of social necessity.

This is simply untrue.  Heinrich's determination of abstract labor is the basis for his argument of Marx's value theory as a monetary theory of value (a term originating in Backhaus' work).

Here are the quotations that you ignore:

[neither coat nor linen] "is in and of itself value-objectivity, they are this only insofar as that this objectivity is commonly held by them.  Outside of their relationship with each other -- the relationship in which they are equalized -- neither coat nor linen possess value-objectivity or objectivity as congelations of human labor per se." (MEGA 2.6:30)

[...]

"a product of labor, considered in isolation, is not value, nor is it a commodity.  It only becomes value in its unity with another product of labor." (MEGA, 2.6:31)

"It is only by being exchanged that the products of labour acquire a socially uniform objectivity as values, which is distinct from their sensuously varied objectivity as articles of utility" (Capital Vol. I:166)

And, a sentence that is included in the official French edition of Capital (the last edition personally supervised by Marx during his lifetime), but not in any of the English translations or in the MEW German edition:

"The reduction of various concrete private acts of labor to this abstraction of equal human labor is only carried out through exchange, which in fact equates products of different acts of labor with each other."

(MEGA II.6:41)






More information about the Marxism mailing list