Message 01469 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxdeT01397 Message: 13/35 L12 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re(2): [ox] more on use-value

I argued "use-value" was a biased category which blocks
critique of technologies and Graham replies:

I don't see why. Take a specific example: a design for an electronic
circuit, now and in the gpl-gesellschaft :-)
For this to have a use value (or if you prefer what Ralf pointed out
is a synonym, 'usefulness') it must satisfy some criteria:

1) Valid for any society: it must be physically possible (a design for
a perpetual motion machine has no use value, though it may have artistic
or imaginative values)


2) Partially valid for both societies: a design which will consume less
is more useful. Today, that only applies if the design is battery powered,
since something which exhausts its batteries in 5 minutes will not sell.
In the gpl-gesellschaft design  for a mains-powered device which consumes
less power than another is the more useful.

I just found a great example of technology which shows by its very
this difference in "use-value(s)"

3) Valid only in gpl-gesellschaft:
a design which  can be easily made without access to a huge factory is
more useful than a design which cannot be so made

right. RIGHT!!! This is a big difference to industrial communism.

4) Valid in gpl-gesellschaft, and actually negatively-valid (?) now:
a design for a device which can be easily repaired is more useful than
a design for a device which is throw-away only.

right. and the artificial differences and and and....

How does the concept of use-value block this kind of analysis?

Question in return:

How did the concept of use-value enable this analysis?

You have rejected the fact that use-value is neutral or 
everything produced has use-value per se.

You went to analyze the social constitution of products.

As we discussed in our private mail conversation, the flaw
of the term use-value is that on one side it describes the 
objective physical qualities of the ware, in distinction to
its relative social qualities (i.e. value)
On the other side, use-value only makes sense as a 
relational category between the user and the ware -
and Marx describes this part as a rather "private"
relationship outside the political economy. So its the
"value" the user gives to the ware as a physical answer to
his needs, its an "objective" image of a subjective mind.

So the category at least is not unproblematic ;-)

(hier bricht das Manuskript ab)

Organisation: projekt

[English translation]
Thread: oxdeT01397 Message: 13/35 L12 [In index]
Message 01469 [Homepage] [Navigation]