Re: Re(2): [ox] Die Anwendbarkeit der Werttheorie in der Informatik
- From: graham belegost.mit.edu
- Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 18:58:32 -0500 (EST)
Franz Nahrada wrote:
liste oekonux.de Steph. Mtz. comments on Graham:
I don't think so, because use value does only exist in combination
with (exchange) value. If value is absent use value is not present
too. I got a reply from Ralf, and I know that this point is not part
of a consensus. Anyway, let's check it ...
In general, I think these categories are only categories for
value-based economies. They are not valid in an ontological sense,
at least, you always have to clarifiy the status of these
categories.
++++
Let me support Stephans point, I also had a controversy with
Ralf on that point and I feel Stephan is perfectly right:
The concept of use-value is the total neutrality concerning
the usage of the commodity.
But Capital Book 1 Ch 1:
'a use value satisfies a particular want... all the different
varieties of value in use... the useful labour embodied in
use values is qualitatively different in each of them...' etc.
So while the concept of use value is abstract, its actual
embodiment is always concrete and specific, unlike exchange value.
Thus it is much closer to
the concept of "usefulness" of the subjective value - theories
than most Marxists would believe. It is a concept
limited to capitalist societies:
Before this my assumption was that Marx simply took 'use value'
from Smith and Ricardo without making any original contributions
to the idea. And both Smith and Ricardo use the words 'use value'
and 'utility' interchangeably, so yes, the idea is also the base
of the subjective-value theories. I used it thoughtlessly as a
synonym for 'usefulness' without questioning why '-value' is appended...
If we use Marx method and imagine another society
which is producing its product on the base of anticipation,
the concept of "use-value" would not make sense. The
"use-value" which just means the product must fulfill
any (!) given human need - which of course is not
the interesting point, but the ability of this need to
pay for the commodity - is a totally abstract concept
of the purpose of production, which can only make sense
if the goal of production is *value*. Of course value and
use-value are not the same, use-value is just the
"shadow" of value, the neccesary evil for the producer
of the commodity. Without use value, no value.
It's a new argument to me; I'm not sure whether I agree
or not.
In Marx' description of use-value
in capitalism there are numerous places where he makes it quite
clear that use-value can only be specific and concrete in form,
where exchange value is abstract with only one universal form,
money. But still - your argument makes a lot of sense to me.
If exchange value goes, how can the other half of an abstraction
maintain itself?
But if free software has no use-value how is it that it can
replace non-free software in the same function? Simply because
it has the same function, and 'function' is a word without
the same place in M's system of ideas? Or is the
idea of use-value still useful (ha) for goods which have no
exchange value but are functioning inside a capitalist society?
Not that it proves anything, but Marx himself clearly thought
use value valid for any society: 'so far as labour is a creator
of use value, is useful labour, it is a necessary condition,
independent of all forms of society, for the existence of the human race'.
(Kapital, Bk1 ,Ch1)
Do you have any more concrete results from dropping the term
use value for all but capitalist society, or is this mainly
just a semantic argument?
<snip>
sustainability and welfare. We now can see that
the concept of single-side usefulness is an unsustainable
one and no rational production furthermore can escape the
imperative to produce according to multidimensional
requirements of reproductiveness, sustainability,
safety, degradability and so on.
Agreed.
And the old Marxist
point is simply itself subject to criticism, if Marxism
claims to have answers to fundamental concepts
of societies beyond capitalism.
Do many Marxists make this claim? There is (deliberately)
amazingly little in Marx' published works about post-capitalist
society, and very little in his notebooks too. I don't see why
any of it should be of much help to people really dealing with
such problems. On the other hand, unless you believe a magic
'leap' is possible, before which society is 100% capitalist
and after which it is 100% new, then there is a period of
co-existence during which Marx' analysis/criticism of capitalism
is important. But for any practical question of a post-capitalist
society, any experience takes immediate precedence over Marx' guesses
(I'm assuming that eg the former USSR was not post-capitalist in this sense).
For example, is management a requirement for any large-scale production or only
under capitalism? You can either take Marx' guesses, statements about
orchestras needing conductors etc, or look at large free software projects
and how they are organized. For me, as soon as the second approach
is possible the first becomes irrelevant.
Graham
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.de/
Organisation: projekt oekonux.de