File spoon-archives/marxism.archive/marxism_1994/94-07-31.000, message 58


From: Steve.Keen-AT-unsw.EDU.AU
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 09:34:07 +1000
Subject: Re: Introductions--Steve Keen


Wes writes:
In rereading Marx's theory of value, what did you do with use value?  I am
interested in this because I am rereading the question of value
through Deleuze/G. and Lacan where use value is generated as easily
from the "imgaination" a from actual material.  Any comments would be appreciate
d.

Briefly, the first thing I tried to "do with use-value" was
to resurrect it as a fundamental part of Marx's logic. The
conventional interpretation of Marx (that associated with
Paul Sweezy, Maurice Dobb, and Ronald Meek) argued that
use-value played no role in Marx's economics. I supported the
arguments of Rosdolsky (_The Making of Marx's Capital_) and
Groll (History of Political Economy, 1980, pp. 336-71) that
this conventional view was erroneous, and that use-value
was crucial to Marx's theory of value.

The second thing I did was to sketch the historical development
of this concept, which began in a footnote to the Grundrisse
(Penguin edition, pp. 267-68).

The third was to show how Marx employed the concepts of 
use-value and exchange-value to derive one pillar of the 
labor theory of value--that surplus is extracted from labor-
power, despite the exchange that precedes the extraction
being an exchange of equivalents. (the argument occupies
several segments in pp. 154-188 of the Progress Press edition)

The fourth was to argue that Marx "fudged" the other pillar
of a LTV: that surplus cannot be extracted from machinery.
The argument (pp. 193-199 of same) contradicts the logic
developed in the section on labor-power. When properly
applied, the logic gives the conclusion that machinery can
also be a source of surplus-value.

That's the argument, as briefly as I can manage.

As for the notion of exploitation involved (Phil O'Hara's
question), the proposition that all profit is derived
from the exploitation of labor-power is replaced by the
less didactic but still critical notion that, if labor-
power is reduced to the level of a commodity (i.e.,
paid only a subsistence wage), then capitalists extract
surplus, not just from labor-power, but from all productive
inputs. The struggle to achieve better-than-subsistence wages
then appears as a struggle over the apportioning of the
surplus between the classes.

Cheers,
Steve Keen


     ------------------

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005