Use value is the inherent value in a thing as apparent to society in general. I argue that a product or a thing may hold use-value for an individual but I gather Marx would rather identify use-value with things that have social value, that is, things that hold value to others. Value embodies the average time spent by the average worker working with average means of production to produce a commodity. Thus, value is social in its definition because the average time would have to be socially determined. Exchange value refers to the qualitative (which are the commodities that can be considered equivalent and thus, exchanged) and quantitative (what are the amounts in which the commodities can be exchanged) relationship that is established between products. The social context in which use-value, value, and exchange value are defined allows Marx to use these three terms as the characteristics of a commodity. When one considers labor with regard to the three terms used by Marx to describe a commodity it becomes apparent that labor is a commodity in so far as it is a social activity. For a trader the importance of a commodity lies in being able to exchange it for a commodity that serves as the money-form or simply for another commodity that possesses greater exchange value at the time of exchange. Buying labor becomes an attractive proposition only when it has the potential to add value that is greater than the cost of acquisition. Yet, once bought labor becomes a parameter whose presence or absence determines the value of the commodity that it is engaged in the production of (e.g. a strike by workers can cause a rise in prices) as well as the value of the means of production (the factory loses monetary value in the event of a lock out). Thus, it would seem that labor as a commodity consistently adds to subtracts value to commodities and capital in a manner that cannot be easily observed in the behavior of other commodities. The other example I could think of was that of oil. The presence of absence of crude oil makes a difference to the price of other commodities and also to the assets of corporations and individuals that rely on energy. Even here, the cost of buying oil is entirely realized in the transaction whereas buying labor is a continual transaction. I am arguing that buying labor may be necessary for conserving the value associated with assets rather than for adding value. In this case, hiring labor cannot be looked at as productive by simply a necessary artifact of the capitalist economy. Thus, capitalism requires the continual hiring of labor even when it does not serve to produce surplus value, so long as the capitalist is interested in conserving the value associated with the assets he owns.
In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into &
Comments