[Robert, ignore the following.] me: >> GDP is basically a measure of what Marx called "exchange value" or value in >> exchange, while the GPI is an effort to measure use value. Strictly >> speaking, it's impossible to measure use value, but it's okay to try as long >> as you know the limitations. ...<<
Julio writes:> This treats "use value" and "exchange value" as if they were two extraneous, disconnected categories. < This isn't true. All I did was separate the concepts for the discussion of what GDP and GPI mean. That does not separate the concepts forever. Marx didn't always use the two phrases in the same sentence and it's hard to see him as seeing the two as "extraneous, disconnected categories." > However, _exchange value_ is a *form* of _value_, which in turn is the *form* > of _use value_ in certain contexts, namely societies where use values are > produced by independent private producers, who must therefore trade these > goods as commodities for their social arrangement to reproduce itself.< As far as I can tell, Marx's "value" (socially-necessary abstract labor-time or SNALT) is not a "form" of use-value (which interpret as being like "utility" but not the same as it). Rather, I see him as saying that to have value, a commodity must also be a use-value. (Of course, not all use-values have value, since some of them are not sold on the market. Not all use-values are commodities.) As Marx saw it, by the standards of a commodity-producing society, it's not the use-value that counts. Non-market benefits (such as those of positive externalities) do not count to the market system. What is "use-value," anyway (or what is it from Marx's point of view)? on the first page of CAPITAL, vol. I, Marx writes: >>>Every useful thing, as iron, paper, &c., may be looked at from the two >>>points of view of quality and quantity. It is an assemblage of many >>>properties, and may therefore be of use in various ways. To discover the >>>various uses of things is the work of history. So also is the establishment >>>of socially-recognized standards of measure for the quantities of these >>>useful objects. The diversity of these measures has its origin partly in the >>>diverse nature of the objects to be measured, partly in convention. >>>The utility of a thing makes it a use value. But this utility is not a thing >>>of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no >>>existence apart from that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a >>>diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use value, >>>something useful. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount >>>of labor required to appropriate its useful qualities [in simple terms, its >>>value]. When treating of use value, we always assume to be dealing with >>>definite quantities, such as dozens of watches, yards of linen, or tons of >>>iron. The use values of commodities furnish the material for a special >>>study, that of the commercial knowledge of commodities. Use values become a >>>reality only by use or consumption: they also constitute the substance of >>>all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that wealth. In the form of >>>society we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material >>>depositories of exchan! ge value.<<< I don't see Marx as saying here that use-value can be aggregated into a single number (which is what I meant when I said that it's "impossible to measure use value" as the GPI purports to do). If anything, "use-value" would be a vector, consisting of "dozens of watches, yards of linen, [and] tons of iron" (among other things). As far as I know, Marx never tried to add up use-values. The GPI accountants use prices and shadow prices to add up those dozens, yards, and tons. It may be a useful exercise for some purposes, but in the end it can't be done. > ... you can measure use value. ... < I don't read German so I don't know for sure, but I see Marx as using the phrase "use-value" as either a noun as Marx did in the quote above (a commodity must _be_ a use-value) -- or an item's characteristic (its utility: a commodity must have use-value to its buyer). In the first interpretation, aggregating use-value would add up all the dozens, yards, and tons, somehow translating them all into a common metric. That doesn't seem legitimate (except as a first approximation the way that the GPI accountants do). If use-value is a characteristic of an item (the second interpretation), it's not like its weight or size. It involves a relationship with its owner or its user. That doesn't seem to be something that can be measured and then added up. Julio, what are the _units_ of the common measure used to measure use-value so that use-values can be added up? > How will we ever be able to measure exchange value if we cannot measure use > value...? How can we ever measure exchange value (and value) without > measuring use value?< Value: If you can measure the number of apples, you can say how much socially-necessary abstract labor-time (SNALT or value) is required to produce each one. Or if they're not homogeneous, you can calculate the total amount of SNALT it is required to produce a collection of apples instead (and then calculate an average value for the collection). Thus, at least in theory, it's possible to measure value even if use-value (the service provided by the apples to humans?) cannot be measured. Exchange-value: I know that this is controversial, but Marx's discussion in CAPITAL makes the most sense to me if I interpret "exchange value" as the amount of SNALT the sale of a commodity can _claim_. That is, if I sell my apples, how much value will I be paid? or if I buy apples, how much SNALT must I pay? With a constant value of the money unit, i.e., SNALT/unit of money, the exchange-value of a commodity would be calculated as its price*(value of money) = (pesos per apple)*(SNALT per peso) = SNALT required to buy an apple. At least in theory, this can be measured even if use-value cannot be measured. BTW, in volume I of CAPITAL, Marx generally assumed that commodities "sold at value." To me, this means that for each commodity, the amount of value (the SNALT needed to produce it) equals the exchange-value (the amount of SNALT that is earned by selling it). But in the real world, the two often differ (for example, because surplus-value is produced, the organic composition of capital differs between sectors, etc.) Therein lies a tale, only partly told by three volumes. > But, how do we measure use value then? Well, use value is not a physical > measure of things in themselves. It's a measure of *wealth*, i.e. of things > for our selves. So how do we measure what something is, represents, or > "means" to us or for us? We are the measure of things! Our lives, our > powers, which is to say our ability to spend our lives consciously > (productive power of labor or, for short, labor power, what other power is > there?), are the measure of things. So, in brief: Our wealth is our measure, > the measure of our conscious lives. And we, our conscious lives, are the > measure of our wealth. < Okay, then how do we measure "our conscious lives" or the contribution of (say) an apple to our conscious lives? using marginal utility? consumer surplus? if you're measuring use-value, doesn't it depend on which individual you're talking about? I see grated coconut innards as being the opposite of a use-value (or as having negative use-value to me), but my wife likes them. But maybe this makes sense. The use-value of an apple could be measured by the amount of SNALT that I would have to spend if I grew and harvested the apple myself (a shadow price, measured in value terms). Is this what you're talking about, Julio? In any event, how would _you_ measure the use-value of a collection of apples? Be concrete, please. > When we determine the value of any piece of wealth, we are measuring our > productive power, the productive force of our labor. As Marx showed, the > value of wealth (in a commodity-producing society) is the reciprocal of the > productive force of labor. The greater the force of labor productive of a > given amount of wealth..., the lower its value, and vice versa.< Usually, "labor productivity" (the usual measure of the productive force of labor) is the number of units of a certain item that an hour of labor-time produces (e.g., apples harvested per hour). By the way, real-world measures of labor productivity use inflation-corrected market prices to add up the numerator, so the "labor productivity" depends on the relative prices of various items. (The denominator adds up all sorts of heterogeneous labor time, assuming that each hour is equivalent to all the rest, but let's ignore that.) If prices are taken as a proxy for values (as makes sense for society as a whole), then as usually measured, "labor productivity" is (total societal value) per hour of labor-time. Thus, if a certain vector of use-values (the "given amount of wealth") can be produced with less labor (because each hour has "greater force"), its value is lower. I think that's what you're saying. If so, I agree. > Saying that value is a measure of the productive force of labor (stock) is > not different from saying that value is a measure of social labor time > (flow). < Still assuming that labor productivity is the same as "the productive power of labor," labor productivity is not a stock magnitude. Instead, it's a ratio of two flows (the amount of apples produced during a week (say) divided by the amount of labor done during that week). Value is not a measure of labor productivity. Anyway, didn't you say above that value is the _reciprocal_ of the productive force of labor? However, it is true (for Marx) that "value is a measure of social labor time," though only for commodity-producing labor time. > The productive force of labor (or labor power, for short) is the *stock* of > the *flow* we call labor, the activity. < Labor-power is not the "productive force of labor." It refers to the "aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in a human being" (Marx). But that refers to the ability to do labor (and the potential quality of that labor), which is something that cannot be measured (except as approximations used by personnel managers) rather than to the results of labor being done. Labor-power is measured by the amount of hours (or minutes or whatever) of time that a worker agrees to submit to the capitalist's authority in return for pay (in effect, _renting_ out labor-power to the boss). That's not the same as the productive force of labor. However, it is true that labor-power is a stock variable: the ability to work can be seen as an asset. Also, labor is a flow, an exertion of the aforementioned mental and physical capabilities existing in the human being. (Of course, in a commodity-producing society, the only labor that is counted is commodity-producing labor.) I have to stop there. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
