From: Philip Dunn (pscumnud@DIRCON.CO.UK)
Date: Mon Oct 03 2005 - 10:43:21 EDT
Hi Jerry Quoting Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: > Hi Phil: > > > Are you saying that use-value is constitutive of value in the sense that > > an invisible value tag is tied to the use-value with non-material string? > > No, I am simply making what I took to be an uncontroversial point: > the 'being' of value requires the presence of use-value, i.e. without > use-value, there is no value. This is agreed. > > > And that the magnitude of value so attached is fixed for ever? > > Certainly not. Use-value is a pre-condition and constituent form > of value. It does not itself fix the magnitude of value. But, if > a commodity was presumed to have value and is later shown not > to have use-value, then the lack of use-value can "un-fix" the > magnitude of the value of the product. > > > That > > would seem to make value a property of the use-value. > > Use-value, like value and exchange-value, is a social property > of the commodity. > I would say that exchange value is not a property of the commodity at all, although exchangeability, the value-form, is constitutive of the commodity. Exchange-value is the other thing that commodity exchanges for. Also I would say use-value is a natural property of the commodity, not a social property, in the sense of "social" and "natural" that is involved ere. Do you still have a problem with a physical stock having negative value? Philip Dunn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 04 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT