I will also ignore it. On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote:
> [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 > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
