[OPE-L:5236] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: Re: [Mike W] Re: use-value as quantitative

["Gerald_A_Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxx>]

Re Steve K's [5324]:

> Here we go with "read my lips again".
> Jerry, what I said was "one plays no role in determining the other": i.e.,
> that for strict commodities, the use-value of the commodity plays no role
> in determining its EXCHANGE value. You instead read me as saying that
> use-value plays no role in determining VALUE. I
did not say that!

I don't have to read your lips -- I can read your
words. I will capitalize your words below so
that you don't miss it.

> > > I argue that use-value is quantitative in the M--C--M+ circuit, and
> > > MEASURED IN VALUE UNITS, and the two magnitudes are incommensurable
with
> > > each other in the sense Marx meant, which was that one plays no role
in
> > > determining the other *for strict commodities*.

Moreover, lets's follow *exactly* what you say
above: if it is true that uv and ev are both
"measured in value units", then it can not
also follow that uv and ev play no role in
determining each other for 'strict commodities'.
I.e. if there is no uv, then there can be no
value and HENCE no ev for the 'commodity'.
Thus, whether a commodity contains uv
is a necessary precondition for the the product
to actually have value *and ev* and thereby
actually be a commodity. And that follows
necessarily -- word for word -- from what you
wrote above.

In solidarity, Jerry