<DIV>boddhisatva wrote:<BR></DIV> <DIV>"The hierarchy of use value" makes no sense as a phrase. If you mean,<BR>use-value's role in the hierarchy of productive social relations, I<BR>think it's co-equal with labor value and will always be.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>While every commodity, exchange-value has to have a use-value, not every use-value has to have an exchange-value i.e. a good or a service doesn't have to take the form of a commodity.  I think Marx saw socialism as system for the production of use-values with the commodity form, exchange-value, stripped off.  The perceived use-value of "labor value" is that by being able to buy labor power for wages, the capitalist can make a profit from the sale of commodities produced by labor.  Use-value is bound up with human perception.  Thus, a BIBLE may be perceived as useful to some, where a bottle of real ale might be perceived as far more useful to others.  The balance of need fulfillment in a socialist society would have to be mediated by some kind of self-managing democractic system of collective consensus, as there would be no State nor any classes to interfere with the political equality of all.    </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best,</DIV> <DIV>Mike B)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR><BR>Read "Penguins in Bondage":<br>http://happystiletto.blogspot.com/<p>  <hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!?<br> Get on board. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=40791/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta">You're invited</a> to try the new Yahoo! Mail.