Re: [OPE-L] Marx's Form of Analysis

From: Philip Dunn (pscumnud@DIRCON.CO.UK)
Date: Tue Feb 15 2005 - 18:24:47 EST

Quoting Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM:

> 1. Phil:
> > The role of use-value is very wide in Marx.
> I agree completely.
and problematic.
> At the most abstract level, the reason why there is unity
> as well as opposition between use-value and value is
> because of  the specific character of  labour-time required
> for that relation to represent  value.  I.e. labor-time  must be
> socially-necessary for it to be expressed as value.
> Socially-necessary labour-time, though, has more
> than one meaning:
> 1.  (conventional meaning) It is the time "required to
> produce an article under the normal conditions of
> production, and with the average degree of skill and
> intensity prevalent at the time."
> 2.  (additional meaning) for labor-time to actually
> count as socially-necessary, the commodity product
> must be sold.  For it to be sold, it must have use-
> value.  Consequently,  the process whereby value
> becomes actual requires the presence of use-value.

OK, let's run with that.  Two meanings of SNLT.  The first is potential, the
second actual.  The actuality here is an actuality of realization or
recognition by money.  There is however another potentiality/actuality
dimension, that between labour-power and labour.  Here the actuality is an
actuality of activity, labour being the activity or expenditure of

So we get a 2 by 2 table.  Email will inevitably mangle a table, so this is in

Top right: recognised labour activity. a double actuality.
Top left: recognised labour-power
Bottom right: potential labour activity
Bottom left: potential labour-power, a double potentiality.

The point is that, while it is arguable that bottom right = bottom left, top
right cannot equal top left.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 25 2005 - 00:00:02 EST