In the Fragment Marx repeatedly refers to "wealth" and use-value. I was under the impression that (well in Capital anyway) that Marx used wealth, or material wealth to refer to products of labour/use-values. In the Fragments, Marx seems to use wealth to refer to value. In the Fragment does wealth = value? I think so as
Marx wrote:
As soon as labour in the direct form has ceased to be the great well-spring of wealth, labour time ceases and must cease to be its measure, and hence exchange value of use value. (Grundrisse, 705)
(and I still don't see why this means that value is extracted from "the common" as the autonomists claim, it's a quantuum leap IMO)
Can comment on articles and discussions
I think he's saying that before the immense development of productivity, wealth (i.e. use-values) are created primarily by increasing the amount of labor-time. With the extreme development of productivity, there is less correspondence of labor-time to use-values produced.
I think it's a weak argument. It sounds like he's saying that the reason that value developed was that productivity was low, and the reason that labor-time became the basis of value was that it was the "measure" of use-values, and that now that productivity has grown this no longer makes sense.
You don't find anything like that argument in Capital, and for good reason. Exchange-value didn't develop because wealth was measured by labor-time.
The autonomist reading is silly, though. They interpret the passage as if Marx had said that labor-time ceased to measure exchange-value. He doesn't say that. He said that exchange-value ceases to measure use-value, which is totally different (but still confused).