[OPE-L:5182] Re: Re: the transfer and depreciation of the value of means of production

["Gerald_A_Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Re Steve K's [5179]:

 

The discussion with John was informative--in fact, John spotted the numerical example which I had missed in my first reading of the Grundrisse. But it failed to satisfy me for the same reason that your comment fails to satisfy me, in that John would not accept the contention that use-value could be quantitative.

----------
*What is the unit of measurement, then, of use-

value? How is its magnitude measured?*

----------
Far from being inconsistent with Marx's perspective on the creation of value, it is integral to it: in the case of inputs to production, use-value is *quantitative*, not qualitative. This is precisely the manner in which he derives the result that labor-power is a source of surplus-value in Capital:

---------------

*Labor time can be measured -- even though it

gets tricky because what is being measured

is *socially necessary labor time* rather than

just labor time. If use value, you emphasize,

is quantitative then h-o-w is it measured?*
----------------
<snip, JL>
in general, your statement above is an accurate statement of what Marx claimed. However, it is *not* true of that one example I gave: there Marx did quite explicitly--in his use-value/exchange-value language linked to the issue of the *difference* between value creation and depreciation--consider that the value transferred to output by a machine could be greater than the value it contains: "It also has to be postulated (which was not done above) that the use-value of the machine significantly greater than its value; i.e. that its devaluation in the service of production is not proportional to its increasing effect on production."

 

------------------------

*Alas, you did not take up my challenge to defend

that interpretation by placing it +within the context+

of the examples and paragraphs preceeding and

following the quote.*

In solidarity, Jerry