Date: Tue, 29 Jul 1997 22:58:17 +0100
From: Chris Burford <cburford-AT-gn.apc.org>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Info revln


Bravo!

Chris Burford


>I don't think that Marx's intention is to relegate use-value entirely to
>the realm of nature. Somewhere he writes that hunger is hunger, but the
>hunger that is satisfied with teeth and nails is different from that
>satisfied with knife and fork ie that needs change over historical time.
>It doesn't really help to see use and exchange value in terms of 'real'
>and 'symbolic'. Value relations are real, but value has not an atom of
>matter in it etc. It is a real relationship. As to whether objects of
>use can be symbols, well, why not, if that is the use they are intended
>for, but does that disturb the categorical distinction? I don't think
>so.
>
>Use value as a category might span different historical epochs (in its
>application that is) but only because it is relatively empty (not in
>itself a problem). Only if this is seen formalistically does it become a
>problem. Only ask yourself whether men must of necessity engage in an
>exchange with nature (yes) and whether they must engage in an exchange
>with each other (no).

<snip>

>James Heartfield




     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---