Abstract

Ulrich Steinvorth ('Marx's Analysis of Commodity Exchange?, Inquiry, Vol. 19 [1976]) and C. J. Arthur ('Labour: Marx's Concrete Universal?, Inquiry, Vol. 21 [1978]) rely on the two?fold character of labour in arguing that the mysteries of money and profit have been correctly interpreted by Marx. However, Marx's own arguments for his distinction between abstract and concrete labour are faulty, as is his identification of labour and material products. They also claim that the exchange of commodities and distribution of resources in capitalist society validate Marx's theory that the determination of value by labour?time is the ?secret? behind capitalist crises. These claims are insufficiently justified, and provide no additional reason for accepting the two?fold character of labour