[OPE-L:4299] Re: Re: Doh!

From: Steve Keen (s.keen@uws.edu.au)
Date: Thu Oct 26 2000 - 08:24:02 EDT

I realised after firing off this reply that Andrew didn't quite mean what
he stated--as per the qualification below--but I thought my reply still
worth sending to OPE:
Why is it "utterly absurd" to describe the use-value of machines as "purely
quantitative", when it is not "absolutely absurd" to describe the use-value
of workers as quantitative?:

"Exchange-value and use-value [are] intrinsically incommensurable
magnitudes" (Capital I, p. 506 [Progress Press Edition])
I also re-read our exchanges on this, as he suggested. These again relate
to the distinction between labour-power and labour being the explanation as
to why labour is the source of surplus-value. I know this is the standard
position--and of course, it's not mine. I instead argue that this
distinction is why Marx sees the value of labour power as being the minimum
wage. Marx did continue to use this as a basis for his explanation of the
source of surplus-value, coextensive with the use-value/exchange-value
argument, but I argue that on this he was logically wrong.

Of course, I don't expect to convince anyone on this list of that.

Still, I would appreciate people's "take" on the cite from Marx above.


At 11:41 26/10/00 +0100, you wrote:
>I should have written 'purely qualitative' of course.
Dr. Steve Keen
Senior Lecturer
Economics & Finance
University of Western Sydney Macarthur
Building 11 Room 30,
Goldsmith Avenue, Campbelltown
PO Box 555 Campbelltown NSW 2560
s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683
Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088
Home Page: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:12 EST