[2001fa:57]

This question <55|158-2> overall <56|58> Hans: <56|58>.

Question 145: Which two steps in the analysis of value did Aristotle make correctly, and which step did he not make?

[57] Hans: The Equality of Labor in a Slave Society Aristotle argued about the commodities in ways very similar to Marx. After remarking that this supports Marx's logic, Che writes in [55]:

Aristotle arguments follows first that the value of a commodity finds some equal value in a given value of a another commodity, or that a certain amount of a commodity is equal to certain amount of money.

It is not clear at all what you mean here. I had to go back to Marx's text to fill in what you might have meant. The first step in Aristotle's argument is: The expression of the value of a commodity in money is no different than its expression in another commodity.

This is important to Marx's building his argument of value commodities in the market.

Yes, this corroborates Marx's procedure. Marx starts with the expression of the value of the linen in another commodity (the coat) and then develops in many steps what this expression means, what its deficiencies are, and how this expression develops into the more appropriate and comprehensive monetary expression of value.

The second point that Aristotle correctly makes and which further bolsters Marx's value argument is that there needs to be a qualitative element between commodities that in essence bring equality between them and allows for exchange to take place.

Yes. Now which step is missing?

... why he fell short in analysis is because he had no concept of the abstract labor, which is the essential component of value in Marx's argument.

Here you are too specific. Ricardo did not distinguish between concrete and abstract labor either, yet he had a labor theory of value. Aristotle did not have a labor theory of value at all: he did not associate that what is equal in the commodities with labor. Why did Aristotle not see this? Because in his society, labor was not equal.