[OPE-L:5199] use-value as qualitative?

From: Gerald_A_Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@email.msn.com)
Date: Sun Mar 18 2001 - 03:31:46 EST

Re Steve K's [5198]:

In the quote below, you focus on the last word.
I would focus on the last three words. What I
take "intrinsically incommensurable" to mean is 
that they can't be "added-up" together because
they are apples and oranges so to speak.
Actually, that's a poor analogy because both
apples and oranges have the characteristic of
being fruit whereas use-value and exchange-value 
only have a general and systematic common
characteristic to the extent that they both (along
with value) represent different aspects of the 

I would say that, assuming the commodity-form,
use-value can't be measured directly. It can only 
be measured indirectly. Nonetheless, I think it
is legitimate to say that there can be a diminution
of use-value over time and with use. I.e. use-
values are consumed and as use-values are
consumed there *must be*  less use-value remaining. 
Yet, we can only see this, assuming the 
commodity-form, through exchange-value even 
though  u-v. and e-v. are "intrinsically 

To me, this doesn't suggest that u-v is quantitative.
All it suggests to me is that, through the 
commodity-form there is a quantitative measure
of value that requires that the commodity has
quality in the form of u-v and  (to the extent that
quality must form a component aspect of
the following) value.

In solidarity, Jerry

. What is your take on the statement that "exchange-value and use-value [are] 
intrinsically incommensurable magnitudes".
 Do you accept that as at least prima facie 
evidence that in some instances Marx did 
contemplate that use-value could be 

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:29 EDT