Well let's stick to a topic worthy of discussion then. What is your take on the statement that "exchange-value and use-value [are] intrinsically incommensurable magnitudes". Do you accept that as at least prima facie evidence that in some instances Marx did contemplate that use-value could be quantitative? Cheers, Steve PS I know you do actually engage me on this Jerry, and I appreciate that--I was just a bit taken aback at how this particular instance of engagement began. At 05:14 PM 3/17/01 -0500, you wrote: >Re Steve K's [5193]: > >Steve wrote: > >I'm rather lucky that my PC crashed before I could reply to this, because >it gave me the chance to take a few deep breaths. I am accustomed to >asking others on this list to "read my lips", but not you. I choose my >words fairly carefully in my posts, and I would appreciate if you would >read them carefully. >I did NOT say that "qualitative issues lie outside of Marx's analysis". I >said that "qualitative issues form no part of his CORE analysis" (even >that statement I qualified. And of course, my statement was in contrast to >the neoclassicals--which further qualifies it). >------------------------ >I'm sorry if I misunderstood the points you were >making and didn't read your post as carefully as I should have. BUT, even >as you explain your >position above, I disagree with it. I think, rather, >that qualitative issues DO form a part of his CORE >analysis. His CORE analysis is of value and that >concerns BOTH quality and quantity. >----------------------------- >Steve continued: > >But perhaps I didn't choose my words carefully enough. By "core", I meant >something like "foundation concepts from which he derived his pivotal >initial arguments on the source of value and determination of prices". I >hope that's clearer. >------------------------------- >It's clearer -- but again I disagree. He derived >his pivotal early arguments based on an analysis >of the commodity. That was his starting point -- >not use-value nor exchange-value. It was only in >the unfolding of the character of the commodity >that the categories of use-value, value, and >exchange-value were introduced. >------------------------------- >Steve continues: > >So I agree with everything you posted about the role of quality, but it >makes no difference to my argument, or to the difference between us over >this initial issue: whether use-value can be quantitative in Marx's CORE >(as defined above) analysis, and whether I had or had not found at least >prima facie textual evidence to support that--for example, the statement >that "use-value and exchange-value are intrinsically incommensurable >MAGNITUDES". >--------------------------------- >I don't think it's "prima facie" evidence, but I >agree that it is a quote worthy of discussion. > >You might want to ask yourself how categories >which are "intrinsically incommensurable" can >both be expressed quantitatively as magnitudes. >It is only to the extent that the quality (use-value) >can be expressed through the commodity-form >and commodities have value and that value comes >to be necessarily expressed through the value-form >that magnitude has meaning for the commodity's >exchange-value. > >(You might also want to see how the subject of >magnitude unfolds and is a component part of the >Hegelian logical system.) >----------------------------------------- >Steve continues: > >Now, from the next segment of your reply, it appears that you don't regard >this or any other textual excerpt I found as conclusive or even suggestive >of this interpretation. >---------------------------------- >I just wanted to concentrate on what appeared to >me to be the CORE differences in interpretation. >It seemed a more fruitful way to discuss the topic >rather than offering alternative explanations and >readings of so many of the quotes cited. In some >cases, especially in the early part of your post >when you quoted Marx about the importance of >use-value, I didn't comment because I agreed with >those quotes. Therefore, there was nothing to >discuss (especially since I made my perspectives >on that issue known to you close to 6 years ago >and on repeated occasions since). > >In any event, I've been the one who has been >willing to talk to you about this -- that's more >than others on this list have been willing to do lately. >------------------------------------- >Steve closes: > >If so, I can't convince you, so as with so much else on this discussion >list, we'll just have to agree to disagree. >------------------------------------- >That's up to you. Hopefully, others will join in and >we can have more than a 2 person exchange. But, >listmembers discuss what they want to discuss and >over time I have come to realize that they don't >always want to discuss the topics I want to discuss. >Eventually, you may come to the same conclusion >-- but I hope not. > >In solidarity, Jerry > >PS: Sorry about your computer. I hope there was >no damage done to the machine ... after all, that >would represent a premature loss of use-value. >How can I tell that use-value has declined, you >ask? I can tell because your computer takes >the value-form and would have either a resale >value, expressed in money, or no resale value >at all (except, perhaps, as scrap). Dr. Steve Keen Senior Lecturer Economics & Finance Campbelltown, Building 11 Room 30, School of Economics and Finance UNIVERSITY WESTERN SYDNEY LOCKED BAG 1797 PENRITH SOUTH DC NSW 1797 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 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:29 EDT