So what exactly does Marx mean when he speaks of "value" anyway?

So what exactly does Marx mean when he speaks of "value" anyway?

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch03.htm
heteconomist.com/competition-for-marx-was-not-neoclassical-perfect-competition/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

You gearing up for your next debate, AA?

[T]he common substance that manifests itself in the exchange value of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their value.

So value is essentially just labor time?

value = what a good takes to be created
utility (also called use-value) = what a good can be used for
As far as I know, the LTV is about showing that price, or "exchange value", can be explained by value alone rather than either just utility (as classical economists would have it) or both value and utility, and that the only relevant input for value is SNLT.

no you little reactionary shit.

Exchange value is the market price of a commodity, while use value is the usefulness of the commodity - it's real value that is also the commodity's usefulness. The LTV explains that commodities have a higher use value and usually a higher exchange value if more labor effort is put into the commodity.

This is B A S I C E C O N O M I C S

This is wrong; don't educate people if you have no clue what you're talking about.
This is totally incorrect, Marx clearly distinguishes between the two. Exchange value is essentially synonymous with value, as value can only be expressed in an exchange relationship and is not some inherent essence or some such fetishized nonsense. Price is what people actually pay for a good after other factors such as supply and demand have affected the equilibrium price which the LTV deduces. Use value is mostly unrelated to both, which is one of the problems with capitalism. It also doesn't have any particular relation to labor time, it's just how much use or pleasure people get from a particular commodity. My enjoyment (use value) of a bag of chips doesn't increase if it was more or less labor intensive to produce it, whereas the value and price will.

Doesn't use value influence demand and thereby price though? Of course, some people have more currency than others and will have a disproportionate amount of influence on what the demand is, but that doesn't mean use value has nothing to do with price.

Isn't price just exchange value for the money-commodity?

Once you accept that, why fool around with this LTV nonsense? Just accept orthodox economics and dump the dumpster fire LTV bullshit.

Orthodox economics has lead to developed economies spending a great portion of their capital and labor on jerking themselves off in industries that produce absolutely nothing with any use-value to the masses (advertising, business suits, financial derivatives, etc.) instead of doing useful things like automating shit, solving climate change, providing inexpensive and quality housing/food, and so forth, so I'm not left with any choice but to reject it. Any system that has someone as useless as a stock broker become a millionaire but has a harvester who breaks their body and exists in agonizing heat exist on the brink of poverty is a stupid system.

Now, I don't really buy the LTV myself (natural resources exist, demand is relevant), but I'm not going anywhere near the classical dumpster fire.

No. No matter how useful a commodity is to me, I will always try to get it as cheap as possible. On a perfect, free market, it drives the prices toward the socially necessary labour time to produce my commodity.

Why would an item with no utility/use-value (e.g. a random stone I've spent five hours polishing) be able to gain exchange-value if no one on the market's interested in it?

Damn lots of retards ITT

Value = The labour time something takes to create on average by society
Use value = How useful something is, not really measurable
Exchange value = The ratio at which you can trade one commodity for another, manifested in money (often)

LTV describes equilibrium prices, equilibrium prices being when any trade in society doesn't lead to a transference of value from one person to another. What this means is that with equilibrium prices, work is done in such proportions that one hour of mining coal by an average miner creates as much exchange value as one hour of baking bread by an average bread baker.
These equalibrium prices are what capitalism, with perfect competition, tends towards. This is because work that generates more exchange value relative to the value created than another attracts people to work there, you can make more money, to buy more stuff, per hour there, and vice versa the places that produce less than other places have less people working there. This changes the supply in society so that the prices go toward the equilibrium prices.

This is in a perfectly competitive society, with a perfect free market. which doesnt exist in real life.

cuz pretty

Daily reminder that having a leftcom flag doesnt mean they are right.

Not exactly. Use-value is the set of objective qualities of the commodity that will allow me to use it.

...

Value is effort*skill*time.
So when I make a dragon dildo out of my snot, which is very difficult, time consuming and laborious process, it is extremely precious.

There's a reason why Marx doesn't equivocate around the two. Stop reading Harvey's bullshit.

leftcom to the rescue

It has a lot of value but no real use value, so you are essentially wasting your energy.

Epic shitpost.


It has no value if it doesn't even have a use value in the first place. A product doesn't become a commodity if it can't be exchanged for another in the first place.

Not to mention, this is a misunderstanding on the level of the retards who still try to argue with the mudpie argument.

But he does:
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch03.htm
First sentence of the fourth paragraph.

no:

Maybe you meant that:

to:

Congratulations on being the only cunt who bothered to read the first few chapters of Capital Volume I.

You have to love when communists can't even agree what Marx is saying… If only Marx didn't redefine a bunch of words or use words to mean something that has an already established word as a referent in some intellectually dishonest way to hide his bullshit.

The LTV is just nonsense, you're better off without it. Believing in it is antithetical to success.

Very good. The only objection is about the "perfect competition" which is a neoclassical meme.

heteconomist.com/competition-for-marx-was-not-neoclassical-perfect-competition/


Anwar Shaikh uses the term "real competition" to describe the classical/marxist view on the phenomenon

AA in this thread RIGHT NOW

Not an argument.

Gaining pleasure from its appearance is a use.

Oh boy. LTV wasnt invented by marx, it was an existing commonly accepted theory, marx just elaborated on it.

There was no argument to begin with you just misrepresented everything he said.
If no one on the market was interested in it then it would have no exchange value.

...

Know your own memes my friend… The labor theory of value that Adam Smith talked about is much akin to how orthodox economics works. The one Ricardo presented was not the same as the one Marx did.

Marx had his own brand of the LTV where he reinvented the meaning of words to obscure the flaws in his theory. That's reality.

And it's reality that you would be better off to stop believing in it and advocate for something else. You're better off dumping it rather then trying to explain the assumptions it holds to make arguments.

I corrected it immediately after reading it again,


He says this, yet I remember him well implying that commodities are not always sold for their values in either WLC or VPP. Either way I'm beginning to read this chapter.

...

I can't wait to read you point them.

Neh, I just skimmed an article and stitched some of the content together under the LeftCom flag for added pretentiousness in the hopes that it would generate discussion.

Except no one here has read Marx, which is why people don't understand what he means.

in the short term, price is changed by demand, however in the long term, supply grows faster in areas where demand is higher in comparison to supply such that demand does not regulate price in most cases

I don't understand what this means.

Why did Marx Omit the T in "the"?

Yes and constant correction of the contradictory results thereby produced in the Abstract General Capitalism in praxis creates the real movement of the production system, just as when Hegel claimed to have made thought move by the flickering between sheer undifferentiated presence and absence at a high frame rate with their infinite similarity. It's because we didn't understand the three body problem back then and tried to shoe horn dynamism over a static syllogical schematic via the psuedo-motion produced in moments of dialectical apperception.

The flickering of Being and Nothing happens because of movement, you dingus. That's the whole point: Being and Nothing are nothing but movements of abstract negativity in the form of indeterminate Becoming.

Don't teach others about Hegel or Marx, you pseud.

How does anyone misinterpret Hegel this badly?

Did you mean this for:

?

Please read attached.