[OPE-L:5237] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: use-value as qualitative

[Francisco Paulo Cipolla <cipolla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I've been teaching political economy for a decade now and a question i
have consitently asked in my exams was: Use the concepts of value of labor
power and use value of labor power in order to derive surplus value. Interestingly
enough and against my explicit emphasis the students insisted in just subtracting
the value of labor power from the use value of labor power. I went out
of my way to explain to them that we had first to convert the use value
of labor power into a quantitative dimension before we could subtract the
value of labor power. I repeated over and over again that we could not
subtract value from use value the same way we cannot subtract the value
of a pen from its use value as a means to write. The conversion of the
use value of labor power into a quantitative dimension is its actual use
for a specific period of time. Outside its actual use we cannot obtain
its quantitative dimension. That's also the reason why capitalists are
so zealous in making sure this quantitative dimension is put to good use.
Was I giving lower grades than due for this past decade?
Paulo Cipolla

Steve Keen wrote:

 Hi Jerry,

I use the old Progress Press edition.

This quote is the point at which Marx first reveals the source of surplus-value in Capital I.

Cheers,
Steve
At 09:38 AM 3/20/01 -0500, you wrote:

It is unclear to me in what edition of Volume 1 of
*Capital* on 'p. 188' Steve K cited below in [5189].
However, for reference, it is from Ch. 7, Section 2
in a paragraph that begins "Let us examine the
matter more closely."  In the Kerr edition, this
paragraph is on pp. 215-216. In the International
(1939) edition, see pp. 174-175. In the Penguin ed.,
see pp. 300-301. An interesting difference in
translation concerns "the value which that labor-
power creates in the labor process" (Kerr) vs.
"the value that labour-power valorizes [*verwertet*]
in the labour-process" (Penguin). Note that in all
cases the VLP and the "value that ...." concern
value as such, not uv.

In solidarity, Jerry

The past labor that is embodied in the labor power, and the

living labor that it can call into action; the daily cost of

maintaining it, and its daily expenditure in work, are two

totally different things. *The former determines the

exchange-value of the labor power, the latter is its use-value.*

The fact that half a [working] day's labor is necessary to keep

the laborer alive during 24 hours, does not in any way prevent

him from working a whole day. Therefore, the value of labor

power, and the value which that labor power creates in the labor

process, are two entirely different magnitudes; and this

difference of the two values was what the capitalist had in

view, when he was purchasing the labor power... What really

influenced him was the specific use-value which this commodity

possesses of being a source not only of value, but of more value

than it has itself. This is the special service that the

capitalist expects from labor power, and in this transaction he

acts in accordance with the 'eternal laws' of the exchange of

commodities. *The seller of labor power, like the seller of any

other commodity, realizes its exchange-value, and parts with its

use-value.* (capital I, p. 188.)

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.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/