Re Steve K's [5198]: In the quote below, you focus on the last word. I would focus on the last three words. What I take "intrinsically incommensurable" to mean is that they can't be "added-up" together because they are apples and oranges so to speak. Actually, that's a poor analogy because both apples and oranges have the characteristic of being fruit whereas use-value and exchange-value only have a general and systematic common characteristic to the extent that they both (along with value) represent different aspects of the commodity. I would say that, assuming the commodity-form, use-value can't be measured directly. It can only be measured indirectly. Nonetheless, I think it is legitimate to say that there can be a diminution of use-value over time and with use. I.e. use- values are consumed and as use-values are consumed there *must be* less use-value remaining. Yet, we can only see this, assuming the commodity-form, through exchange-value even though u-v. and e-v. are "intrinsically incommensurable". To me, this doesn't suggest that u-v is quantitative. All it suggests to me is that, through the commodity-form there is a quantitative measure of value that requires that the commodity has quality in the form of u-v and (to the extent that quality must form a component aspect of the following) value. In solidarity, Jerry >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . 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? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:29 EDT