Forwarded from Anthony (value)

Jim Drysdale jimd48 at
Sun Dec 30 21:05:44 MST 2001

>From Jim Drysdale,

Hi Anthony, 'twas yourself that raised confusion, I had hoped that I'd
helped to remove same.

you write...

snip> In my opinion, the 'use value' of labor power is simple: it produces
>'useful things and services'. Capital, as commodified labor power,
>has the same use value - i.e. it is used to produce useful things.
>('Useful' in the sense that somebody wants to use them, even if they
>are weapons of mass destruction, nintendo games, or junk food.)

JD:  Here you confuse natural useful concrete labour, common to all
societies, with abstract labour...the social form that labour takes in
capitalist society.  (value)
Yes, of course, values must have use value.   But (briefly) abstract labour
is abstracted from all useful labours and thus from all useful qualities of
commodities.   i.e as Marx says...we set these aside.  That is, (briefly) we
find the common *third* in exchange. (of commodities)
That is (briefly)......simple human labour has been expended on the
production of all commodities.

You confuse the useful qualities of the commodity (put there by useful
labour) with value.  (abstract labour)

Capital *is not* used to produce useful things.  Capital *is* self-expanding
value, self-expanding money.
Again, the fact that use values have to be produced is given.   That is,
labour that does not produce a use value has no value in capitalist society.
Thus, the fact that our capitalists must produce use values is really
secondary to their sole aim of accumulation.  (of value)    For example, and capital.

Again, when discussing capitalist society all useful labours are put aside.
That is, (briefly) we live in a society dominated by value.

I won't go over my previous post.  However, a little more on the *use value*
aspect of *commodified*  labour power.

Anthony, despite confusion, you do, I feel, accept that labour power *is* a
Therefore, even if only by definition it *must* posses both use value and
exchange value.

See previous post.  But, living labour power is the exact opposite of, if
you like, of fixed, obectified labour.
It's *not* useful concrete natural labour that capital seeks.  It's abstract
human labour power...the source and the substance of value.

Again,  the use value aspect of commodified labour that its
*use* both conserves and adds value.

>From Capital Vol 1......Marx....

' The seller of labour-power, like the seller of any other commodity,
realises its exchange value, and parts with its use value.
......The circumstance that, on the one hand the daily sustenance of labour
power costs only half a days labour,
while on the other hand the very same labour power can work during a whole
day, that consequently the value
which its use during one day creates, is double what he pays for that use,
this circumstance is, without doubt,
a piece of good luck for the buyer.......'

Anthony, Marx writes this *after* he steps through understanding of the
nature of value.
So, you can see (from above) that commodified labour power has both exchange
value and use value.
That is....labour power (abstract labour) *is not* useful natural concrete
labour.   Nothing to do with it!
As is *obvious * from the above of Marx.

Anthony, you write...

snip> Either Jim Drysdale is confused about the use value of capital, or I

JD: The use value of capital....says.....what is it that capital must use to
self-expand? *must* use labour power.  (i.e abstract labour...the source and
the substance of value)
Because capital is self-expanding value.....and not anything at all to do
with the concrete natural useful labour that gives the useful qualities to
use values. (ie. commodities)

In essence Anthony, you require more understanding of value.

I hope that the above *plus* the previous post assists.  Failing that, read
As I  said before...many read.....but, often, many fail to

As before, please accept my assistance.  As I did that of others.

Anthony, you write...

snip> All workers in capitalist society do not sell their labor power.
>Housewifes do not, share croppers do not, slaves do not, etc. The
>capitalist society Jim is talking about is an ideal, abstract, model
>- not the real society we live in.

This is emotional non-sense.   I prefer the thought of Marx.

>From the above appears that you cannot understand Marx
precisely because you feel that *you* have still to anlayse capital and thus
*your* version of the reality of capitalist society.

This I feel, laid squarely (and you're not alone) in *not* understanding the
thought of Marx.on..*value*.

I'll leave it at that.   (that is,in the interests of fraternal list
interactions, I'll button my lip)

As they say Anthony.....the answer is out there.  ie. in Capital Vol 1 Marx.
*nowhere else*.

And, most certainly not in speculative thought based on mis-understanding of



PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list