>Yes. Use value is important in so far as it is socially validated as
need,
>i.e., it enters into the basket of goods that determine the
reproduction
>cost of labor. But the aim of capitalist production is exchange, not
social
>usefulness.
>Use value is outside, irrelevant to, the logic of capital.
saying that the aim of capitalist production is surplus value simply offers a tautology: the aim of the captialsit mode of production is the production of capital. true, there is a circularity, the appearance of self-referentiality here, or shoudl i say, the constant attempt to wish this as a circular movement. this appearance is only tightened, given credence, mirrored, if you say that this therefore means that use value is irrelevant to capital. what is irrelevant to the capitalist is the specific commodity they set people to work to produce. what is not irrelevant is the combination of use values and exchange values that give this commodity a social life as a commodity.
>Production for use, while eliminating
>the distortions of capitalist production for exchange, is a primary
basis
>for socialism and communisnm.
then, here is our disagreement. i think capitalism is production for use. the question is not whether capitalism 'delivers the goods', since for some people it does, for most it does not. there is an inherent distributional problem in capitalism; but it can't be solved by a utilitarianism. what pure needs would be reasserted if we removed the distortions of exchange? or, what strange properties make one thing useful and another not?
angela