This question <66|73> overall <66|68> SamHouston: <12|130>.  
  Question 120: When Marx wrote that labor is the father and the earth the mother of use-values, should he also have included produced means of production in addition to nature and labor?   
  [67] SamHouston: Child Birth.   No. I enjoyed Josh's commentary in [66] for his correct analysis of labor as the father of use-value. An additional element to this question is whether or not produced means of production should be included in the equation for use value. Josh correctly pointed out that all produced means of production are the product of labor and nature. However, in the production process, the produced means are part of the creation of use-value. This is where we should examine whether or not produced means should be part of the equation because obviously they contribute to use-value. But, the produced means of production seem to take on part of the task of labor and mixes with nature to produce a use-value. The produced means of production substitute machine labor for man's labor, but is not independent of labor. The laborer uses produced means of production, effecting the total amount of labor needed in the creation of a commodity. The produced means of production effect the outcome of labor (or how much labor is required to produce a commodity which has an effect on the use-value of the commodity) but is not independent of labor. To say that Labor+Nature+Produced means of Production=Use Value adds an unnecessary ingredient to the table because Labor already accounts for the input of produced means of production.   
  Hans: You make a good argument, but it is based on and extends Josh's erroneous interpretation that Marx considered labor the principal source of use-values.   
 
 
 
  Students enrolled for Econ 5080 in 2009fa are invited to give feedback to the above message
Pseudonym:      UofU ID:  
Text: