Steve, use value, as I read it is something more general than the relationship to labor under capitalism. Water has the same use value no matter what form of mode of production exists. Use value, as I understand it, consists of the properties inherent in an object. It exists irrespective of the personal situation of an individual. To shift to another example, a cigarette has no use value to me, but it still has a use value because of its inherent properties. One example makes my interpretation weaker: where a commodity may confer status upon a person. Maybe I am wrong. This whole thing seems rather simple to me. I am not bringing any deep understanding to this discussion. Maybe you people see something that I don't. Steve Keen wrote: > > Why should the same not apply to machinery?--should not its use-value to a > capitalist also be quantitative? > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael@ecst.csuchico.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:10 EST