Jim wrote that GDP is "a measure of exchange value," while "Strictly speaking, it's impossible to measure use value".
*This* treats use value and exchange value as two disjoint categories, *because* -- I insist -- value is the *social* form of that *material* entity we call (noun) use value or useful object. As a result, there is absolutely *no* way to measure value except by measuring use value. And there is absolutely *no* way to measure use value except by measuring value (or its correlate under social conditions other than commodity production). If this sounds like a paradox, it is. Welcome to the life of a society. To connect with your way of putting things, say value is the SNLT required to reproduce a commodity (e.g. a basket of apples). How do you measure SNLT if not by measuring concrete, specific applications of the productive force of labor (labor power, yes Sir)? What is a concrete labor process if not the "use value" of the "labor power" of particular individual workers? And how do you measure the concrete labor of Peter, one individual worker picking apples from a tree today, so the measure is made comparable with the concrete labor of the same Peter doing the same or other task yesterday, or of Sam, another individual worker doing the same task or some other, similarly necessary to produce the said basket of apples? Where do you get your weights from, the weights with which your form your "expectation" or "index" or "average" or whatever you wish to call it? I'll tell you where from: you introduce value weights or something akin to value weights. And so you should. Yes, value is the social form that useful objects (use values, the noun) take under specific social conditions. Or if you do not wish to call it value, call it whatever you wish to call it; it will correspond to the common notion of value. The portions of Capital you quote make precisely the point that the reason why value exists, a social form attached to use values (the noun), is not some physical property of these things, but specific social conditions (private ownership, etc.). You don't see Marx saying that use values can be aggregated into a single number, but Marx does this aggregation himself in his various examples (as he did throughout his life), as you or I or everybody else does and must do. A basket of apples is an aggregation. Producing one single apple, or just the act of picking it from a tree and placing it in the basket, is *qualitatively* different from picking another apple from the same or another tree and placing it in the same or in a different basket. Is it legit to speak of a "concrete" labor productive of apples or you can only accept a vector of size n to refer to the n different qualitative tasks that must be performed to produce the apples? Can you see that the labor that produces a single apple is in fact the aggregation of a very complex series of concrete qualitatively different tasks? E.g., (1) get a ladder, (2) lean the ladder on the tree, (3) climb the ladder, (4) stretch the arm making sure you don't fall, (5) pick the apple, (6) place it in basket, (7) climb down the ladder or grab another apple, etc. How do you do aggregate these very different steps without weighting them? Can you see that these different tasks can, in turn, be decomposed into simpler and more elementary actions on the basis of their distinctive qualities? How do you determine your weights? So, how can you say that Marx never tried to "add" or average use values? What was his department 1 and department 2 in volume 2 of Capital if not a reference to aggregate use values that, in closer scrutiny, are incredibly heterogeneous? All that said, let me note that measuring use value (adjective, i.e. the usefulness of particular objects) is not the same as measuring use values (noun). It is an observable fact that no society can reproduce itself without *measuring* use value (adjective), which can be done (very roughly) by measuring use values and then taking actions on the basis of how one feels about these quantities of use values (noun). There are, of course, more refined ways of doing this. In any case, we do it. We all do it. We must do it. Otherwise how would we lead our lives, make our choices, take our actions, which insofar as we act humanly are purposive? Of course, each individual decides (by action or omission) on how important things are to and for her. These individual actions are validated socially. How? Why? Because each individual takes these actions in a social context, in interaction with other individuals. This validation is precisely the process of social formation, of formation of social structures -- e.g. of value as a socially objective structure (or relation of production). The social valuation of commodities is only one elementary and abstract part of a more complex and concrete process of social formation. The formation of political power or, disaggregated a little, of government "policies" (which are truly not that different from other legal contracts, such as financial securities) is another such process, which interacts with the process of social valuation. The productive force of labor is a "stock" in that it is something defined to exist at a point in time. Labor, as an activity defined as taking place over a period of time, is a "flow." You say, but labor productivity (the power to produce of a particular kind of productive wealth, such as "labor power") is measured as the ratio of a flow to another flow (or to some stock). Indeed, how else do we measure stocks, but by their ability to to emit flows? How do we measure a power or force but by what it can generate or produce over time? I'm being a bit of a Hegelian, as Marx was, in my use of the terms "productive forces" (or powers), "productive force (or power) of labor," and "labor power" (in the narrower sense). Because: What are the forces of production if not the forces of *labor*, whether "objectified" or "living" labor powers? I am sure that Marx used these (and other) closely related terms with full consciousness of these implications. But that's neither here not there. We need to think about terms, etc. in ways that make sense to us. Think of your power to undertake a given particular action, e.g. your power to walk or talk? Is it a flow or a stock? Think of your actual action or sequence of actions (the activity of walking or talking). Is it a flow or a stock? How do you measure your power to walk or talk if not by measuring your walking or talking activity and comparing it to something else (the length walked in a day, the number of people persuaded by your talk, etc.)? Value is a measure of labor productivity. A reciprocal of X is a measure of X. Value is a (simple) mathematical transformation of the productive force of labor. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
