Re: Re(2): [ox] more on use-value
- From: graham belegost.mit.edu
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:12:02 -0500 (EST)
Franz wrote:
I argued "use-value" was a biased category which blocks
critique of technologies and Graham replies:
<snip>
How does the concept of use-value block this kind of analysis?
Question in return:
How did the concept of use-value enable this analysis?
It didn't particularly; for me, it neither hinders nor helps
greatly. Which leads me to suspect that if you want to get
rid of the idea so strongly, it may be for other reasons -
maybe its relation to Marx' ideas about work, since these
are the core of his rejection of Hegel?
You have rejected the fact that use-value is neutral or
everything produced has use-value per se.
You went to analyze the social constitution of products.
As we discussed in our private mail conversation, the flaw
of the term use-value is that on one side it describes the
objective physical qualities of the ware, in distinction to
its relative social qualities (i.e. value)
I don't think that I have agreed that 'use value' refers
to 'objective physical qualities' in the sense you appear to
mean. Objective, yes, but Marx refers repeatedly to 'human use',
'use by man' in the context of use value. Since he did not
believe that human nature has a fixed essence, then what makes
a thing useful in one society, does not necessarily make it
useful in another. Use value is also partly a social property.
I say partly, because when Marx talks about use values it is often
in relation to food, housing etc: the bare minimum needed
for physical human survival; in a sense, the part of society that
is not specifically human (ie. all animals need to eat).
On the other side, use-value only makes sense as a
relational category between the user and the ware -
and Marx describes this part as a rather "private"
relationship outside the political economy. So its the
"value" the user gives to the ware as a physical answer to
his needs, its an "objective" image of a subjective mind.
I think not. There is no need to subjective this. Unless
you think that the needs of a society for food, housing,
computers etc. are subjective (some people really have a
greater subjective need for food, that's why it's not shared
more equally ;-).
So the category at least is not unproblematic ;-)
I started off unsure and have become a bit more sure. I don't
think it's particularly problematic. Underdeveloped, yes.
(hier bricht das Manuskript ab)
Ah, more torsos.. Actually, I have a complete proof of the
utility^H^H^H^H^H coherence of the concept of use value but
it's too small to fit in the rest of this email ;-)
Graham
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.de/
Organisation: projekt oekonux.de