Re Steve K's [5229]: > I argue that use-value is quantitative in the M--C--M+ circuit, and > measured in value units, and the two magnitudes are incommensurable with > each other in the sense Marx meant, which was that one plays no role in > determining the other *for strict commodities*. Putting aside the question of the supposed quantifiability of use-value (which we already discussed), you argue above that use-value plays no role in the determination of value '*for strict commodities*'. Let us consider this (once again): A 'strict' commodity, from Marx's perspective, must simultaneously have: a) use-value; b) exchange-value; c) value. Thus, your statement above is simply incorrect. Use-value *does* play a role in the determination of the value of a 'strict' commodity. I.e. if a 'commodity' (i.e. a product of labor that was presumed to constitute a commodity) has 'value' (i.e. what is presumed to be value) but not use-value *then* it can not be a commodity nor will its 'value' necessarily come to appear through exchange-value nor will its 'value' *be* value. This simply follows from a literal, linguistic reading of Marx. Now for meaning: what are supposed to become products and are produced by wage-labor which is employed by capital take the value-form when entering the market. But do these products which are *presumed* to be commodities and *presumed* to have value actually (i.e. really) have value and are they actually (really) commodities (i.e. in the 'strict' sense above)? Not necessarily. *If the product does not have use-value*, then this will become apparant in the marketplace since the 'commodity' will not be sold and thereby its 'value' can not be *actualized* (i.e. REALized). Therefore, the absence of use-value *negates* (what was presumed to constitute) value and transforms what was presumed to be a commodity into a simple (and unexchangeable) product of labor. This possibility not only exists in Marx's definition -- it exists in the nature of the unity of the production and circulation process. And indeed a reflection of this is in the nature of value as *socially-necessary* labor time. How can a 'commodity' be socially-necessary if it doesn't contain use-value? >. I believe that the vast majority of marxists > miss this issue completely (the only ones who ever saw it were Hilferding, > Rosdolsky, Groll, Desai, and me). You've made the claim repeatedly that 'most' Marxists ignore use-value. I'm not so sure. At one point in time, I think that would have been correct. That doesn't mean that it is correct today. To begin with, let's consider Rosdolsky who was a major influence on Mandel and Mattick Sr who in turn influenced many others like Altvater and more recently Fred and others. Let us also not forget the influence of I.I. Rubin who influenced many, many Marxists in the 1970's and beyond (after the publication of his book in English on value). I consider value-form theory, for example, to have been influenced by Rubin as have many others like Elson. The more interesting question, then, might be to ask: what contemporary traditions in Marxism *do* ignore use-value? Perhaps the Monthly Review school, having been influenced by Sweezy? The former 'diamat' school based out of what is now the former USSR? Who else? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:29 EDT