# [Marxism] Heinrich

Sun Feb 17 10:52:07 MST 2013

```Fine. But the immanent measure and the external measure are still
quantitatively incongruous.

The third paragraph of Cap I Ch 3 states that "Money as a measure of
value is the necessary form of appearance of the measure of value which
is immanent in commodities, namely labour-time." We are directed from
the immanent measure to the external measure.

The next paragraph has:

"The general relative form of value has therefore resumed its original
shape of simple or individual relative value."

In other words, the relative value of a produced commodity is equal to
the *value of the money* it sells for. The immanent measure has nothing
directly to do with this.

The following sentences:

"On the other hand, the expanded relative expression of value, the
endless series of equations, has now become the specific  relative form
of value of the money commodity. However, the endless series itself is
now a socially given fact in the shape of the prices of the commodities.
We have only to read the quotations of a price list backwards, to find
the magnitude of the *value of money* expressed in all sorts of
commodities." [my emphasis]

I am suggesting that it is the immanent measures of all sorts of
commodities that have a role in measuring the value of money via the
expanded relative expression of value. They act together as the
equivalent for the value of money. The immanent measure could be called
equivalent value, neatly pairing with relative value.

On 17/02/13 16:34, Angelus Novus wrote:
Ed George gets it --exactly-- right. Very succinctly put: "If the
substance of value is socially necessary labour, measured in time, this
substance has no *objective* existence outside of exchange, in which
value manifests itself in objective form as physical quantities of other
commodities. This is the distinction between value, and exchange-value,
the latter being the physical quantity of the commodity for which a
given commodity is exchanged, and, when the other commodity is the money
commodity, which is its price. If labour is the measure of value it is
the *immanent* measure of value, its exetrnal measure being precisely
price. (And the failure to understand that price and value, in this
sense, are not different things but different forms of existence of the
same thing is what lies behind the so-called 'transformation problem'.)"

```