[OPE-L:5196] Re: Re: Re: use-value as qualitative

[Steve Keen <s.keen@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jerry,

I'm rather lucky that my PC crashed before I could reply to this, because
it gave me the chance to take a few deep breaths. I am accustomed to
asking others on this list to "read my lips", but not you. I
choose my words fairly carefully in my posts, and I would appreciate if
you would read them carefully.

I did NOT say that "qualitative issues lie outside of Marx's
analysis". I said that "qualitative issues form no part of his
CORE analysis" (even that statement I qualified. And of course, my
statement was in contrast to the neoclassicals--which further qualifies
it).

But perhaps I didn't choose my words carefully enough. By
"core", I meant something like "foundation concepts from
which he derived his pivotal initial arguments on the source of value and
determination of prices". I hope that's clearer.

So I agree with everything you posted about the role of quality, but it
makes no difference to my argument, or to the difference between us over
this initial issue: whether use-value can be quantitative in Marx's CORE
(as defined above) analysis, and whether I had or had not found at least
prima facie textual evidence to support that--for example, the statement
that "use-value and exchange-value are intrinsically incommensurable
MAGNITUDES".

Now, from the next segment of your reply, it appears that you don't
regard this or any other textual excerpt I found as conclusive or even
suggestive of this interpretation. If so, I can't convince you, so as
with so much else on this discussion list, we'll just have to agree to
disagree.

Cheers,
Steve

At 08:15 AM 3/17/01 -0500, you wrote:
> Re Steve
> K's [5189]:
>  
> >  If Marx were a neoclassical, then it could of 
> > course be a qualitative concept. But since 
> > qualitative issues form no part of his core 
> > analysis (except when he reduces qualitative
> >  differences to quantitative ones, as in the
> > reduction of skilled to unskilled labour--of 
> > which more later), to become an issue in
> >  Marx's political economy, use-value has to 
> > somehow in some circumstances be quantitative.
>  
> I strongly disagree with your premise that
> qualitative issues lie outside of Marx's
> analysis. 
> Indeed, Marx's philosophy and method of
> abstraction
> embodies a tension and dialectic between
> quality
> and quantity. Rather than lying outside of
> his
> theory of  capitalism, qualitative issues
> are at the
> very heart of that understanding. To miss this
> point
> is to confuse Marx with the political
> economists that
> he was critiquing. E.g. he critisized Ricardo
> for
> conflating exchange-value with value and
> thereby
> conceiving of value as merely quantity. By
> doing so,
> Ricardo was not able to comprehend how
> the
> value relationship is an _expression_ of the
> social
> relations of production associated with
> capitalism.
> This internalization of quality and its
> dynamic
> tension with quantity into the subject matter
> is
> an _expression_ of Marx's historical
> materialism.
> Yet, this same integration of quality and
> quantity
> was well understood by Hegel and Hegelians
> of
> various kinds.
>
> > Marx's special perspective on use-value arises 
> > from its role in the circuit of capital, M-C-M. 
> > Here he is quite emphatic that use-value 
> > *MUST* be the explanation of the source of 
> > surplus value. This can only occur if, in this 
> > realm, use-value is quantitative.
>  
> All that is required is, rather, that the
> *commodity-
> form* has both qualitative and
> quantitative
> dimensions.  Use-value, in order words,
> need not
> be quantitative but value must come to be
> expressed quantitatively even though it
> incorporates
> a qualitative side (i.e. the "socially
> necessary" in
> SNLT).
>
>  
> > Conceptualising use-value as purely qualitative 
> > means it has no role in economics.
>  
> Why?
>  
> Political economy, at least Marx's and
> Marxist
> political economy, is not merely about
> quantity.
> *If the subject matter of economics is
> quantity
> alone then, indeed, it is merely an applied
> branch
> of mathamatics!*  Unfortunately, many
> economists
> have come to view economics in precisely
> these
> terms but it stands in stark contrast both to
> Marxian
> theories and to heterodox theories
> generally.
>  
> In solidarity, Jerry

Dr. Steve Keen
Senior Lecturer
Economics & Finance
Campbelltown, Building 11 Room 30,
School of Economics and Finance
UNIVERSITY WESTERN SYDNEY
LOCKED BAG 1797
PENRITH SOUTH DC NSW 1797
Australia
s.keen@xxxxxxxxxx 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683
Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088
Home Page: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/