On the question of whether use-value is quantitative or not, I
won't say anything. Hugo Radice said what I wanted to say.
But I don't think use-value is irrelevant to Marx's political
economy. He abstracts from it at the beginning of CAPITAL.
All that's necessary is that a commodity have a use-value or
be a use-value. But after that, use-value is introduced
again and again. Labor-power is distinguished from other
commodities because it has the use-value of being able to
create surplus-value. Then in volume II, Marx introduces
the differences between "Departments" I and II, which is
a matter of use-value: means of production have a different
use-value than means of subsistence. In volume III, he starts
talking about a large number of industries, each with different
products, each having different use-values. Etc. Sometimes
Marx's logic is seen as expressing the logic of the contradiction
between exchange-value (or surplus-value) and use-value.
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
