i ( 1 ) it follows from the

i ( 1 ) it follows from the very definition of money that money is not meant to measure the use-value ( worth ) of a commodity ; ( 2 ) we're aware of no reasons for claiming that money can measure the use-value of commodities ; ( 3 ) we're not aware either of any reason to believe that the use-value of a commodity is measurable in money ; ( 4 ) There exists no criterion for measuring the use-value in money. What conclusion would you draw, if you must draw one, from these four points ?  Point one is whole separate discussion re fiat money. Karl and fred actually conspiciously avoided it like the plague even though it was around in their time. I think they had it in Prussia , Russia and China? There is a a load of really interesting stuff on it re eastern seaboard of USA from the 1700’s onwards. 2, 3 and four is part of the marginal utility theory people’s argument that is no longer ‘marginal’ and was invented by Jevons who was an English mathematician and not an idiot. Karl and Fred knew about him as they briefly mentioned him once.  Utility theory works well on people ship wrecked on a desert island were the utilities of any commodities that they have can’t be reproduced. So thus you might want to swap a jar of coffee record for 100oz of gold? Robinson Crusoe did end up making his own stuff and then he could think about whether or not the utility was worth the effort. But he could compare or think the amount of time it took to make one thing with that of another or its value. No exchange, no social relations and no market. The utility argument is not totally without merit. Thus you could say that the anti utility of working overtime for six months is worth the utility of a holiday. Then you could have; Labour time = anti utility = another utility[holiday] = someone else’s labour time. The marginal utility people basically blank both ends of that equation and just see the middle- sort of. I don’t really feel like going into it as it is like unravelling spaghetti.