On Thu, 03 Mar 1994 07:35:06 +1000 Steve Keen said:
>First of all, the original quote:
>"As in the case of labour-power, the use-value of money here
>is its capacity of creating value--a value greater than it
>contains." Capital Vol 3, p. 392.
>
>It is clear from that quote that--in this context--Marx is
>thinking of use-value as quantitative. If something's use-value
>is its capacity to create value, then that use-value is
>quantitative, because value is quantitative. Secondly, it is
>clear that Marx perceives this as being analagous to the case
>of labor-power, the commodity which was the subject of his
>discussion in Vol 1 chapter 1. So I'd argue that, though
>Marx's reasoning here on money is nowhere near as developed
>as it was in Ch 1 on labor-power, the two discussions are
>consistent.
I think that the problem here is one of language and its
interpretation:
Now, my reading of Marx has "use-value" as either a noun
("a bicycle is a use-value") or as a qualitative description
("a bicycle has use-value.") In this reading, which is
probably dependent on the translation, use-value might be
seen as a vector of perhaps-quantifiable traits ("a bicycle
is red to a certain degree, goes at a certain speed on hills,
another speed on the flat, changes gears quickly, etc." "it
allows me to get to work in one hour and allows me to enjoy
my free time.") For Marx, use-value could not be quantified
in the sense of being represented as a scalar ("the bicycle
raises my satisfaction by 5 utils, all else equal" or "one
bicycle gives me as much pleasure as three pairs of Nikes.")
Maybe the neoclassicals are right that utility can be
quantified as a scalar, but I don't think Marx was saying so.
(I'd agree with him, but that's not the point here.)
Now Marx did say that a commodity's use-value could have
quantitative *effects*. One of labor-power's uses (the
one stressed by capitalists, of course) is that it can
produce more quantitative exchange-value than it costs
to pay for the workers' subsistence, thus allowing the
production of surplus-value and a surplus-product at the
macro level. One of money's uses (stressed by money-
lenders) is that it can be used to claim part of
the social surplus-value for the individual money-lender.
I don't think having a quantitative effect is the same
as a commodity having a quantitative use-value. A
bicycle can go 5 miles per hour. That doesn't make its
use-value quantitative (at least not in Marx's view).
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine BITNET: jndf@lmuacad INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (off); 310/202-6546 (hm); FAX: 310/338-1950
