Re Steve K's [5324]: > Here we go with "read my lips again". > Jerry, what I said was "one plays no role in determining the other": i.e., > that for strict commodities, the use-value of the commodity plays no role > in determining its EXCHANGE value. You instead read me as saying that > use-value plays no role in determining VALUE. I did not say that! I don't have to read your lips -- I can read your words. I will capitalize your words below so that you don't miss it. > > > 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*. Moreover, lets's follow *exactly* what you say above: if it is true that uv and ev are both "measured in value units", then it can not also follow that uv and ev play no role in determining each other for 'strict commodities'. I.e. if there is no uv, then there can be no value and HENCE no ev for the 'commodity'. Thus, whether a commodity contains uv is a necessary precondition for the the product to actually have value *and ev* and thereby actually be a commodity. And that follows necessarily -- word for word -- from what you wrote above. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:29 EDT