If it is unuseful, it will not have know the value of demonstration what it pretends to found.

More
seriously, the founderation that will try to bring to a quantitative determination of absolute or real value
would auto-destruct on itself if one would amit, as Marx does (following Ricardo) that merchandises
can not be realises (made?) at their value.
Said otherwise, if the real or absolute value meurs depend on what the relative prices of the les
merchandies depend on for the quantitiy of labor, then this absolute or real value must vanish if it says
that the realitve prices distance themselves from the relative quantities of work in case of a divergencce
between their value and price.
The alternative to the progress of Marx would either to find another foundation for the determination of
the value en general as absolute valeur on the quantitaif plan, or to simply abandon all pretention of
founding by a logical demonstration of value in general. It would be necessary to do this by adopting as
a counter-part (contre-partie) a hypothetico-deductive progression which would from the beiginning,
without justifying it, the concept of valeur in general as absolute valeur living to furnish from it
theoretical and empircail justification secondary in level to the ulterieur consequences of the theoretical
model. But more than unuseful, the reasoning of Marx would be also fundamentally confused in that
which leads him, by the same reason of its inutility, to an implicit confusion between absolute value
and relative value and at the same time to obscure the taking into account of a double function of value.
The fundamental contrediction contained in the reasoing of our other would explain at the same
time the paradoxe wthat Marx had on one side inconstestibly contributed to a modern utilisatio n of the
theory labor value in the study of the process of valorisation and that while that same thing up
completely because of insufficienceies contained at the center of his theory of value.
The given critque proceeding the reasoning of Marx leas on the hypothesis that Marx gives tot
he term of value, or law of valuethe sens of absolute value. The things are in reality a little more
complicated. In effect, without putting into doubt the existenct of a concept of absolute value chez
Marx the presence of which is attested to in a certain mainner in the quantitative links made between la
valeur and the quantity of abstract work, it would seem however that the fundamental reasoning of the
analysis of valeur chez Marx is more centered on a care about the determination of relative prices. Thus
what Marx is trying to demonstrate in his analysis of the contents of the equality of exchange is the
logical or theoretical necessity so that merchandises in general are always made at their value. The
concept of absolute value although sous-jacent the reasonning of Marx would not be here the object of
his analysis which would for its sole objectif the justification of the idead that price or value ochange is
founded on the relative quantities of incorporated abstract labor or abstract labor. Brieft, what Marx is
trying to found here is the value as the foundation of relative prices of the ratios of exchange. IT is the
conclusion which semes to have been take from the following phrase extracted from chapter 1 of book
1 of Das Kapital:
the whatever thing in commun which shows itself in the ratio of exchange or in the value of
exchange of merchandises is by consequence their value; and a usage value or a whatsoever article has
only as much value as the human later that is materialised ini t.
While the first part of the sentence makes clearly appear Marx's preoccupation with founding the ratio
of exchange in general of the merchandiese to their (absolute values) and thus to their wuantities of
labor, the second part makes clear that Marx poses without justification a determination of absolute
value by the quantitiy of labor. A fundamental theoretical piece of information can be taken from this
constat:
although the concept of absolut value is entirely present chez Marx by its direct link to that of
value, the object of that which he designates by theory of value or law of value is nothing other
than the reduction of the problem of value to the problem of relative price, the absolute value being
then only the presupposition of this law of value thus conceived.

If one interprets the text of Marx in this senes, the objects to the progression of our author emenate
from the source. Other than thee fact Marx does not furnish a true justification to absoulte value as a
quantitative determination (that which constitutea all the same a progres in relationship to Smith and
Ricardo by the measure in which Marx furnishes it nevertheless with a qualitative justification throught
the extistience of private property and a social division of labor without which there would be any
exchange posible and the no value), the reasonning of Marx errs also in its purely tautological character
in the measure in which it presupposed the it only concerns the demonstration of the fact that the
merchandises must necessisarly exchange at their value (equality for two merchandises at the center of
an troc/bartering between relative price and the ratio of real or absolute values.) Since Marx,
following sith and Ricardo, admits that the merchandises can not be exchanged strictly at their value, it
follows that is is of a completely arbitrary and abusive maner that he identifies the equality of the
relationship of exchange between two merchandises in the style of (1 quarter of wheat is worth 5
meteres of cloth) with an equality of real or absolute value.
Besides the tautological character of the demonstration of Marxm it could be indicted for its
contradictory character regarding the later on analysis of the prices made by Marx when he will have
recognized the possibility for a merchandise to trade at a price different than its value. It could allso be
for his narrowingly normative if not abstract and metaphysichcal vision of that which forbade the
possibility of an analysis more concret and complex of the prices as these pries would not to obery in
any circumstance a determination by value.
Finally, as it identifies the analysis of la valeur as the only determination of relative prices. It brings the
prove had never had indication of the theoretical necessity to distinguish a double function played by
the theory of la valeur that he had contributed to emerge.
Epilogue on the analyse of the first

Descriptive part
L'historie
poursssangea
cosutmes decors sounds scenasa=---tous qu'on voit
2nd part
reconstituer de l'auter, de la metteur en scene
the intentions
you have to say what are the differences between the original and what has been performed what are
the interntions
3rd part
What did you think about everything
Pas une jugement globals...but make sure its more specific and itimized.

Question 6: Hows does the analysus of Marx of the future of the capitalist economy differ from that of
the classics?
The classic economists (Smith and Ricardo) have a relatively pessimistic vision of the economic
development. In effect, due to the weak progres in agricultre, the econommic system wil be led to
stagnation and thus to fall more or less in the long term to a zero growth.
The theory of differential rent of Ricardo is completely characteristique of this state of mind
since Ricardo anticipate, because of the progresses of the population and of the ceessitates the
cultivation of less firtle lands, an exponential growth of rent and increase in nominal salaries which will
finish by everyone intern lamening the profit and the level of profit of the indusstriel capitalists lowered
by the growth. Other than their pessimism, the classic economics are characterised also by the absence
of historical perspective of the sort that the idea that modern economic system (or natural according to
these classical economists) would be perhaps to bring about the disappearance in order to leave the
place to another way of production can not evidently lighten up their spirit.