[Marxism] Heinrich

Philip Dunn hyl0morphster at googlemail.com
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'.)"





More information about the Marxism mailing list