[Xmca-l] Contrasting 'use-value' & 'value'

[lpscholar2@gmail.com]

I am attempting to follow Wolff-Michael’s trajectory as presented in his article (A Dialectical Materialist Reading of the Sign). On page 149 he attempts to clarify the difference between sign complex ‘use-value’ & sign complex ‘value’. 
His methodology is to read Marx ‘substituting’ the word ‘SIGN’ (implying sign complex) FOR ‘commodity’ and intuites this method will be generative.

Here is his realization through the method of re-reading as (trading, translation, transposition) as I am carried along.

a) USE-VALUE:  ‘natural signs’ such as animal footprints are useful/functional to the hunter inherently; they do NOT have ‘value’ (exchangeble value) though they do have use-value for the hunter or hunting party in finding game.  Similarly a sign complex can be useful and the product of human labour without being ‘value’ (exchangeable). Someone who satisfies HER needs through her product produces ‘use-value’ but NOT ‘value’. 
b) VALUE: (exchangeable). To produce SIGNS (complexes), she has to produce not only ‘use-value’ but use-value FOR others. She has to produce ‘societal’ use-values.... To be/come (exchangeable) SIGN, the product HAS TO BE TRANSFERRED to another, FOR whom the SIGN complex ‘constitutes’ use-value.

The production of signs that produce no ‘value’ that is exchangeable FOR others leads to personal notes often having NO use-value to others. To trans/form use-value to BE come ‘value’ requires exchangeability under lighting various forms of SIGN (complexes).

Apologies to Wolff-Michael if my echoing his re-reading methodology garrbled the trans/mission?

I offer this because it helps clarify my reading of ‘use-value’ & ‘value’ (exchangeable)
My morning musement

Sent from my Windows 10 phone