Re: [ox] more on use-value
- From: graham belegost.mit.edu
- Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 10:27:51 -0500 (EST)
Franz wrote:
Thats the point. Use-Value is of course a property of a commodity
ands therefore of the elementary form of capitalist wealth.
But that isn't the argument. The argument is whether it is
a property of other (specifically, post-capitalist) goods, too.
Regarding "use-value" one has to state that the material side
is neither created by capitalist economy not is it eternal
and ahistorical.
Agreed. 'Use' only makes sense in the context of people. It
is therefore relative to a particular society.
Even free software can turn to a commodity (a SuSe distribution
for example) and then it has use-value. I would certainly think so ;-)
I am still not convinced that this is really a commodity. I don't know
the terms for Suse distributions, but in general if free software
is 'sold' it is not really the software which is sold, but an implied
service contract (or a book which goes with it, or some nice packaging).
It is not!! The concept of use-value cripples the most
important part of anticapitalist critique: the
critique of Technology.
I don't see why. Take a specific example: a design for an electronic
circuit, now and in the gpl-gesellschaft :-)
For this to have a use value (or if you prefer what Ralf pointed out
is a synonym, 'usefulness') it must satisfy some criteria:
1) Valid for any society: it must be physically possible (a design for
a perpetual motion machine has no use value, though it may have artistic
or imaginative values)
2) Partially valid for both societies: a design which will consume less power
is more useful. Today, that only applies if the design is battery powered,
since something which exhausts its batteries in 5 minutes will not sell.
In the gpl-gesellschaft design for a mains-powered device which consumes
less power than another is the more useful.
3) Valid only in gpl-gesellschaft:
a design which can be easily made without access to a huge factory is
more useful than a design which cannot be so made
4) Valid in gpl-gesellschaft, and actually negatively-valid (?) now:
a design for a device which can be easily repaired is more useful than
a design for a device which is throw-away only.
How does the concept of use-value block this kind of analysis?
Graham
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.de/
Organisation: projekt oekonux.de