Measuring use value

Is there a method for measuring use value?

There are many: measuring tape, weighing scales, eyes, counting, etc.

Any real answers?

It is a real answer. You have no idea what use-value is, do you?

You can't even tell the difference between a method and a tool

I guess you could use Neoclassical marginal utility graphs But they don't make sense.. There's a reason the Classical economist didn't try to measure use value since they are usually socially determined (like how you sit on a chair vs something else) or subjective.

Ok then: measuring the object with a tape, putting it on a weighing scale and looking at the result, looking at it, counting, etc. Happy?

No because its a made up nonsense metric used by social science theologists to justify their management state.

Would you say it's impossible then?

No, you autist.
After doing these things, what is the use value? The sum of the measurements? Their average? Their product?

Yes. The way you assess an objects utility is a personal matter. I've seen some empirical studies that have shown people will doubt the usefulness of a commodity they bought just by asking them if they really like it.

1m of linen, 1kg of rice, a blue t-shirt, 12 eggs, etc.

You don't mesure it, and it is not necessary to do so in order to produce for human need rather than the continued accumilation of capital.


This isn't hard my dude

Those are compleatly uselees metrics tho, as they are not interchangable.

The way you assess the utility is subjective, but you assess it based on the objective qualities nevertheless. These objective qualities are what is called "use-value" if you happen to find them useful ; if you don't, they still exist – there is just no point in calling them anything.

Any object can have those properties without being a use value. I might find a lifesize model of Hitler repulsive, but a Holla Forumsyp may fork over 2 grand for it. The properties are irrelevant to the actual usefulness of the object, which is subjective or socially determined.

Why are so many communists so obsessed with the stage of human development that has litterally zero relevance for anyone at the present time. It is how to arrange society up until that point that should be discussed.

Of course not. Only value is.

But use-value is not useless: if I want to cook a curry, I will need 1kg of rice, not 500g of rice or 1kg of flour.

But does this information hold any value in terms of how to arrange production?

Then "being a life-size model of Hitler" is a use-value of the object.

Of course. When I go to the store I will take 1kg of rice, not 1kg of flour. Therefore the store manager will ask for resupply of rice, not flour, and in the end the farmer will grow rice, not [whatever blé is called in English].

That's wheat, and this explains how to produce according to needs if every need can be met. But how do you produce according to use value in a society with scarcity? How do you dedide whose needs get priority?

Well first of all one must precise we are talking about marginal scarcity here. Scarcity doesn't mean we have to chose between "rice only" and "wheat only"; it means we can meet most of both needs, but there will always be some margin that won't be met.

This calls for another remark: we are not trying to design a perfect mode of production. If we were actually trying to design a mode of production then of course we would try and make it perfect. But we are not trying to design a mode of production at all in the first place because such a thing is not possible – it is mere utopia. What Marx did was to discover, by studying the reality of capitalism, the only way the dynamics of class struggles – that is, the dynamics of history – can and will overcome the inherent contradictions of this mode of production: by getting rid, through a revolutionary process that will give birth to a new mode of production, of value.

That being said, when you get rid of value you become precisely able to make subjevtive decisions on "whose needs get priority".

tl;dr Use-value is objective but the decisions you make with it are subjective and that is precisely the point.

That was indeed the real answer. You may be confusing use value with how contemporary economists argue about utility. Use value is not a one-dimensional scale. There exist very different things that have very different uses. The only way to quantify here is limiting yourself to counting things that are practically the same. So, the use value of a pile of different things in different quantities is a description of the things in the pile and their quantities. Comparing two piles of things according to their use values does not involve coming up with some weighting scheme to give scores to both piles and the better score wins, the comparison is just a list of the different things and their respective quantities the piles are made of. So, which pile is better? Look at what's listed and decide for yourself.

You don't "measure" a use value. The use values of a commodity are dependent on what is known to be its use, but under capitalism these use values are perverted by being fetishized, e.g. (to be topical) a toothbrush's use value may principally be brushing teeth and potentially cleaning other things after the brush is worn, but the utility of the brush itself is but only one facet in the process of commodification: one toothbrush, in order to differentiate from another, must look different, and this look must indeed involve something other than more practical ends. In this way the commodified toothtbrush is fetishized as much as possible to ensure it is successfuly exchanged for its price on the market.