[Xmca-l] Re: units of mathematics education

[Andy Blunden]

I agree that Marx's formulation in the beginning of Chapter 1 and also 
in the Preface are ambiguous, but the whole drift of the work is that 
value is not a property of a material artefact but of a social relation.

     "In the analysis of economic forms, moreover, neither microscopes
    nor chemical reagents are of use. The force of abstraction must
    replace both. But in bourgeois society, the commodity-form of the
    product of labour — or value-form of the commodity — is the economic
    cell-form." (Preface to First German Edition)

Marx goes to great lengths to show that there is nothing about the 
commodity itself - the material object - which gives it value or human 
powers. See the concluding paragraph of Chapter 1: "So far no chemist 
has ever discovered exchange value either in a pearl or a diamond."

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


Martin John Packer wrote:
> Marx's unit of analysis in Capital was the commodity, right? Not the exchange of commodities.
>
> "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities,” its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity."
>
> "A commodity appears, at first sight, a very trivial thing, and easily understood. Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties."
>
> Martin
>
> On Oct 26, 2014, at 11:31 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
>   
>> Remember that when Marx chose an exchange of commodities as a unit of analysis of bourgeois society, he knew full-well that commodities are rarely exchanged - they are bought and sold. But Marx did not "include" money in the unit of analysis.
>>     
>
>
>
>