Use-value/Marx's dynamics (was utopia...)

Jim Jaszewski jjazz at
Tue Oct 17 02:06:36 MDT 1995

On Mon, 16 Oct 1995 Steve.Keen at wrote:

> So "the daily cost of maintaining it", the depreciation of the machine,
> is its exchange-value; "its daily expenditure in work", the amount it
> contributes to production, is its use-value. As with labor-power, these
> are "two totally different things", and from that difference arises the
> possibility of surplus.

	How can you compare a machine's `maintenance' (upkeep or
depreciation) to a human-being's `maintenance'??  The two are semantically
different!!  A machine is an instrument made of metal/plastic/glass/wood
/whatever that does NOT need `reproducing' as a human does on a daily
basis.  When you `feed' something into a machine it is a mere figure of
speech!!!  Little machinelets do not issue forth periodically (Sci-Fi
nano-bots notwithstanding...)

	Machines are not a separate species of worker -- ALL machines are
MAN-MADE.  All machines come from Man's labor -- and all(?) that labor is
taken into account in Marx's calculus.  Once they take on a `life of their
own', machines return gradually to dust -- as they do ONLY what human
labor directs. ANY human can do otherwise and even produce new generations
of laborers...

> What this means for analysis is that there is no necessary link between
> the amount of direct labor employed in any line of production, and the
> rate of surplus in that line;

	This would follow IF your above premise were true.  I don't
believe it is...

|                   OCTOBER  16 - 22 :  TV  TURNOFF  WEEK                    |
| Jim Jaszewski <jjazz at>     PGP Public Key available. |
|                      |

     --- from list marxism at ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list