Marx on the etmyology of Value.

Interesting note on the etymology of value and the socio-historical development of exchange value. At this point it should be noted that Marx does not distinguish between value and exchange value like he does in the published version of Capital where exchange value is the form of appearance of value. Use value, rather than its definition as something of utility in Capital, also has the ring of a neo-romantic Lukacsian conception of nature, which very much goes against Postone’s reading:

“The “VERBAL OBSERVER”, Bailey, and others remark†c that “VALUE”, “valeur” express a property of things. In fact the terms originally express nothing but the use value of things for people, those qualities which make them useful or agreeable, etc., to people. It is in the nature of things that “VALUE”, “valeur”, “Werth” can have no other etymological origin. Use value expresses the natural relationship between things and men, in fact the existence of things for men. Exchange value, as the result of the social development which created it, was later superimposed on the word value=use value. It [exchange-value] is the social existence of things.” MECW 32 429

Advertisements

About HR

Deep in the adjunct crackhole.
This entry was posted in Marx, Value and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s