Oh well, I had thought that the cites would indicate that, whatever (mushy or otherwise) arguments can be made about use-value increasing or decreasing even when it lacks a quantitative dimension, you would have to concede that Marx was using use-value in a distinctly quantitative way when deriving the source of surplus value from the difference between the exchange-value and the use-value of labor-power. But apparently not. Such seems to be life. Cheers, Steve At 08:29 AM 3/19/01 -0500, you wrote: >RE Steve K's [5202]: > > > I actually focus on all three words too: > > "intrinsically incommensurable > > magnitudes". I emphasised the final one only to make the point that, at > > least once in Capital I, Marx explicitly stated that use-value could be a > > magnitude. It seems that you've accepted that point, so let's now check >the > > phrase itself out. > >No, my point (which I'll draw out now) is that >one can notice that a quality can increase or >decrease even though it isn't itself a magnitude. > >[Mushy stuff follows:] >Hath thou ever been in love, perchance? If >so, then you know that love is a quality which >does not have a magnitude (i.e. it is not quantity), >yet we can be able to make perfectly valid >statements like "I love her MORE THAN I >used to" or "My love for her has DIMINISHED". >If something really has magnitude, though, then >it should be able to be measured in some >uniform way (and there is no generally >agreed upon socially valid way of "measuring" >love). > > > Your take is quite feasible: it could be, for instance, that >exchange-value > > is measured in tonnes of steel, while use-value is measured in volts. > >Exchange-value, where e-v forms part of the >totality of the commodity, is measured in >money. What lies behind this measure, though, >is value. Thus, e-v is a necessary form of >appearance of value. This requires that value >must come to take the money-form. > > > However, we know that the unit of measurement of exchange-value which Marx > > used (and which I accept as a measurement tool) is units of socially > > necessary abstract labor. > >Yet, this social relation (value) is necessarily >linked to the money-form. *This means that >we can only determine with certainty if a >product has value EX POST, i.e. after it passes >the 'test' and is sold*. Thus, it is the act of >exchange which socially validates the value and >shows with certainty that what was *presumed* >to have u-v and be value does *in fact* have >u-v and is value. (You might recall that we >discussed these issues once in a long thread >called "Ideal vs. Real Value"). > >Your quotes from Marx seem to be directed >towards Mike W, so I'll let him (or someone >else) discuss them ... eventually. > > > From my point of view, Marx's characterisation of labor-power as a > > commodity *in the first volume of Capital* is entirely understandable. I > > believe that in the intended volume on Wage Labor, Marx would have shown > > what happened when one dropped this supposition, and treated labor-power >as > > both a commodity and a non-commodity. In other words, there is a further > > dialectic which means that the rules which apply to strict commodities > > (products which are produced for a profit using other products) do not > > apply in toto to labor-power. > >On this point: have you read Mike L's >_Beyond Capital: Marx's Political Economy of >the Working Class_ (NY, St. Martin's Press, >1992)? > > > One clear consequence of this is that the > > wage would normally *exceed* the value of labor-power, since if workers > > only received their means of subsistence in return for labor, they would >be > > treated as no more than commodities. > >Yet, paradoxically, in the context of capitalist >production, workers do come to be treated as >no more than commodities. Indeed, it is part >of the value-form imperitive that *everything*, >including that which are not commodities, comes >to be treated *as if* they were commodities. Thus, >within a capitalist society even an intangible quality >such as love comes to be intimately connected >(pun intended) to the value-form. Just >about everything, thus, under capitalism has a price >even if it isn't itself value. > >As for the value of labor-power, this encompasses >both physiological needs amd socially necessary >needs. The latter (socially necesary needs) are >established by custom and habit. >And, of course, class struggle plays an important >role in *establishing* custom, habits, and social >needs. From Marx's perspective, thus, the wage >equals the value of labor-power ON AVERAGE. >Yet, this average is itself a VARIABLE that is >subject to change as customs, habits, and social >needs change. Furthermore, not only can there be >a WIDE dispersion of wages where only a small >minority of wage-workers receive wages equal >to the value of labor power but the VLP (as >well as wages) are constantly changing. >Moreover, there are wide REGIONAL and >INTERNATIONAL disparities here largely >due to the inter-regional and inter-national >variation in habits, customs, social needs and, >relatedly, histories of class struggles. > >In solidarity, Jerry 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.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:29 EDT