1. Clarification from Steve, please: Money and Labour-Power are not 'strict' commodities (cf Duncan's insightful recent post) - agreed. But why is Machinery not a strict commodity: produced by wage labour with a view to being sold for Money in a system of markets, so replete with use-value, exchange value and value? 2. Citing Marx, Steve says: The use-value of such things as unworked mines is a prospective exchange-value from its output. But (again, read my words ...) this doesn't speak to the commensurability of value and use-value (moments of Commodity): a) since an unworked mine is not a commodity (it is not produced by wage-labour), it has no use-value. (Which, of course, does not mean that it is not potentially 'use-ful') b) the prospective exchange-value of the output dug out of the mine by machine-assisted labour is indeed derived from the expenditure of that labour. Perhaps it might help if we meditate upon the standard economics meaning of 'value-added': it is indeed the value-added to the physical inputs by the human inputs (reflected in the non-property income of those human inputs). btw Am I wrong in recalling that whilst Rosdolsky does indeed stress the value/use-value dialectic, he does *not* argue for the quantifiability of use-value in value units? michael -----Original Message----- From: Steve Keen To: Sent: 22/03/01 11:46 Subject: [OPE-L:5234] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: Re: [Mike W] Re: use-value as quantitative
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:29 EDT