From: Philip Dunn (pscumnud@DIRCON.CO.UK)
Date: Tue Feb 15 2005 - 18:24:47 EST
Quoting Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: > 1. Phil: > > > The role of use-value is very wide in Marx. > > I agree completely. > and problematic. > At the most abstract level, the reason why there is unity > as well as opposition between use-value and value is > because of the specific character of labour-time required > for that relation to represent value. I.e. labor-time must be > socially-necessary for it to be expressed as value. > Socially-necessary labour-time, though, has more > than one meaning: > > 1. (conventional meaning) It is the time "required to > produce an article under the normal conditions of > production, and with the average degree of skill and > intensity prevalent at the time." > > 2. (additional meaning) for labor-time to actually > count as socially-necessary, the commodity product > must be sold. For it to be sold, it must have use- > value. Consequently, the process whereby value > becomes actual requires the presence of use-value. OK, let's run with that. Two meanings of SNLT. The first is potential, the second actual. The actuality here is an actuality of realization or recognition by money. There is however another potentiality/actuality dimension, that between labour-power and labour. Here the actuality is an actuality of activity, labour being the activity or expenditure of labour-power. So we get a 2 by 2 table. Email will inevitably mangle a table, so this is in words. Top right: recognised labour activity. a double actuality. Top left: recognised labour-power Bottom right: potential labour activity Bottom left: potential labour-power, a double potentiality. The point is that, while it is arguable that bottom right = bottom left, top right cannot equal top left. Phil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 25 2005 - 00:00:02 EST