I don't "miss" this practical meaning, Rakesh, it's an integral part of my appreciation of Marx. He treats the capitalist as a "consumer" of use-values in the M--C--M+ circuit where he doesn't give a shit about the qualitative aspects of the commodities he buys: all he cares about are their quantitative impacts on increasing his wealth. That is why use-value is quantitative in the M-_C--M+ circuit, whereas it is qualitative in the C--M-_C circuit. Steve At 09:12 AM 3/20/01 -0800, you wrote: >re 5213 > >>While re-reading Vol 1, Ch 7, Section 2 >>in connection with another thread, I noticed the >>following that has significance for this thread: >> >>(From the paragraph that begins: "Moreover, >>the time spent in production counts only in so >>far as it is socially necessary for the production of >>a use-value"): "Lastly -- and for this purpose our >>friend (the capitalist, JL) has a penal code of >>his own -- all wasteful consumption of raw material >>or instruments of labour is strictly forbidden, >>because what is wasted in this way represents a >>superfluous expenditure of quantities of >>objectified labour that does not count in the >>product or enter into its value." (Penguin ed, 303). > >Jerry, >Here Marx underlines that it is labor as a pure quantity, not general >utility, which is meaningful to a producer. There is a practical meaning >to the incommensurability of value and use value which I believe Steve is >missing. The capitalist himself cares about labor, not general or special >utility. As Wm J Blake long ago underlined, the capitalist abstracts >everything on earth except quantity of labor. He does not even care about >the type of labor, about anything in fact, except labor in the abstract as >a quantity. If a customer asks him to make the food sweet or sour, he will >make either. If you want your toys round or square, he'll declare that the >customer is always right. You want a sweater red or blue, he'll oblige you >either way. But you want to put more labor into it? Ah, that's different. >The salesman will abstract all natural qualities; they are indifferent to >him. But on labor, that too is indifferent to him as a quality. But >quantity of labor, more or less labor, that is different. In so far as the >above qualities cost more or less labor, in that proportion will he be >"obliging" or "resistant" to the customer. > >Best, Rakesh 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