I realised after firing off this reply that Andrew didn't quite mean what he stated--as per the qualification below--but I thought my reply still worth sending to OPE: --------- Why is it "utterly absurd" to describe the use-value of machines as "purely quantitative", when it is not "absolutely absurd" to describe the use-value of workers as quantitative?: "Exchange-value and use-value [are] intrinsically incommensurable magnitudes" (Capital I, p. 506 [Progress Press Edition]) --------- I also re-read our exchanges on this, as he suggested. These again relate to the distinction between labour-power and labour being the explanation as to why labour is the source of surplus-value. I know this is the standard position--and of course, it's not mine. I instead argue that this distinction is why Marx sees the value of labour power as being the minimum wage. Marx did continue to use this as a basis for his explanation of the source of surplus-value, coextensive with the use-value/exchange-value argument, but I argue that on this he was logically wrong. Of course, I don't expect to convince anyone on this list of that. Still, I would appreciate people's "take" on the cite from Marx above. Steve At 11:41 26/10/00 +0100, you wrote: >I should have written 'purely qualitative' of course. > >sorry. > >andy > > Dr. Steve Keen Senior Lecturer Economics & Finance University of Western Sydney Macarthur Building 11 Room 30, Goldsmith Avenue, Campbelltown PO Box 555 Campbelltown NSW 2560 Australia s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683 Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088 Home Page: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:12 EST