Did Marx just BTFO himself?

Value is not formed when you deem something valuable it is formed when you acquire something.
you cant make macroeconomics out off exceptions and irelevant propostions, most things will be bought to be used even if it is artificial demand.
you see those black symbols to the right of the image my point is there i know the image is really nice but it's not the focus of the post. If you can't understand it i sugest you star with some simpler questions.

Well, it makes sense. Even something that does not "exist", is nonmaterial has value, for example virtual items in freemium games. In MMO's you pay the developers for the chance to work very hard and progress - when you don't want to work hard you pay even more to skip the labour part. Genius.

This pretty much proves that the "working class" identity is bullshit pandering from on high. Anyone who bestows on you the title of "working class" wants you to waste away your life in the gutter, performing socially valueless labor, while they get to jet-set from one climate conference to another.

It's coming from here: >>>/liberty/66503

...

Utility is subjective to the individual
Value is collectively determined by the market by objective labor time (living and dead)

How can the price of a good go down if it's usefulness has stayed the same
Because the labor required to produce it has been decreased (ie capital)

What if that object was made by me. I plan on not exchanging it, but using it. Does it have value?

That's not a contradiction. The subjectiveness of a commodity's utility doesn't really have any effect on the market.

If that commodity's utility is lower for Person A (who owns it) compared to Person B who wants to buy it, then that commodity enter the market given that the exchange price is agreed upon by Persons A and B.

value is the ammount of work used to make a commodity. Commodity in marxist economics is any good or service produced by human labour and offered as a product for general sale on the market. So no, if you don't sell it it's not a commodity and and has no value. You may think it's valuable for you for whattever reason but this has nothing to do with value as a term in marxism.

lol no. it is qualitative, not subjective.

What part of "SOCIALLY" necessary labor time do you not understand, it doesn't matter if you made a fucking plane in your backyard, it has no value if it does not enter the market, that is what makes labor social and defines the term "commodity", which is the central thing to Marx's whole analysis.

Probably the "socilaly" part. Just barbecue something is social doesn't mean it involves the market. A better term would be market-necessary labor time.

*because

Price has nothing to do with the marxist conception of value. Value is the avarage ammount of work needed to make a commodity measured in time.
and yet this is not how production works. Prices are not determined case to case, There is usually a decided price on things and people will pay for it regardless of how much usefull it is .Mcnuggets cost the same for everyone regardless of how much you like them.

That's not the meaning of social though: it means social as in the root from society: aka the labour time society had to put in to make said product.

Socially necessary labour time = The avarege or expected time it takes for SOCIETY to make a comodity, markets don't make shit.

Why are we discussing these terms with people who have no clue how they are applied?

that's not what it means, jesus christ pick up the damn book

Did you even read the first page? If something doesn't fulfil a want it has not utility.

Fucking "An"Caps.

It's the average time under standard conditions an individual with requisite skill could produce a particular commodity.

Society inputs labor in many things, but that does not mean things are commodities (exchanged in a market).

Non-sequitur. We are not talking about production but exchange. Just because something is made does not mean it is exchanged.

Holy shit an ancap opened a book and read the first chapter.

I now believe in miracles.

Seriously though, while people have different preferences, and may prefer to have some objects over others, nothing can have a use-value without being useful to someone. That's as far as marx goes, he gives up the idea of trying to quantitatively compare preferences and focuses on the objective facts of production.

From the capitalist's perspective, all you need to know is that people want a commodity, that the market price is X, that the standard production process is Y.

That's why if you spend 50 minutes making a box that would take others 30 minutes, it still only has 30 minutes labour embodied in it.

So it is commodity specific? So 1 labor hour of massage != 1 hour manicure, because they are different commodities?

If he's asking this question it's unlikely he understands the definition of use-value.

I didn't go for the specifics to make it more palpable for the ancap readers, but still if it is the avarage time a worker takes to produce X and only those workers produce X in a given society, i think i can say it is the time it takes for society to produce it.

Let me guess, you think most people are either 'welfare queens', self sufficient farmers or self-employed tradesmen?

Statistically speaking you are overwhelmingly likely to be a wagie.

Well, it depends upon the average labour time required for an individual with the required skillset and with the most advanced productive forces to produce a given commodity.

The reason Marx specified this is because it could take one individual five hours to produce a coat (say, using outdated technology, and without any training) and another 1 hour (using more advanced technology, with the necessary skill). If we just go by labour, then we would have to state that the former ought to have 5 times more value than the latter, but in reality this clearly isn't the case.

So it's dependent on how advanced the productive forces are, and what the average skill of a particular labourer is. This is also why the price goes down only gradually when there is an advance in a method of production confined to just one manufacturer; his competitors have to also develop the same technology or method in order to bring down the average value (and thus price) of the commodity in society.

Here's the quote from Capital:

No, the commodity enters the market when the exchange of the commodity is more valuable than the utility commodity itself, ie. when person A decides to attempt to sell it.

Jesus fuck how dense are you?

Yes, I assumed these conditions for labor time. So would that make 1 hour massage (given that the above conditions are met) != 1 hour manicure (also given the above met conditions for that expected industry)? How would these practitioners be compensated?

Why would that object enter the market if its utility valued by Person B is not high enough?

Because there are more than two people buying the same type of commodity.

We're concerned about reality here. If you only have two actors, one buyer and one seller, in what sense is that a market economy?

No, both would be of the same value because they are each 1 hour's labour, by people with the same skillset and the like.
With some means of exchange equivalent to 1 hour's labour time.

Because reality doesn't exist of oversimplified autistic microeconomy models.

Person B represents the person willing to do an exchange given an acceptable price. This could be anyone who is not Person A.

Supply and demand directs production of goods/services whether it is two or more people.

So a manicurist, a masseuse, and a surgeon will all be compensated the same if given that they all meet the average expected skillset for their profession, the most advanced production methods, and producing the same amount of commodities expected by their profession in 1 hour of labor?

If there is nobody who wants it, it has no utility, and wouldn't be sold.

It still enters the market, it's just that it doesn't move.

What is difficult to understand about that?

Generally speaking, yes. Pay differentials can exist in a socialist society, but they are generally based upon supply and demand of skills rather than anything else.

True, but I'm concerned about low utility not no utility.

By this you mean someone tries to sell it but it never gets bought?

Marx doesn't distinguish between "no utility" and "low utility". These are quantitive measures of utility which Marx had no time for; something either has utility or it doesn't. Utility is dependent upon whether it fulfils a particular want, and it has a value low enough for somebody to trade some means of exchange for it.

Remember that communism is moneyless. Reality is there is no model for how the details of socialism should work people will decide it for themselves when the time comes, i for one belive jobs with higher academic requirements should have some incentives and priority over scarce vanity goods, maybe a larger house or things of the like.

Yes.

And yet this still doesn't have anything to do with subjectiveness of utility.

There are plenty.

i mean no single model sorry

Utility is objective because the utility of a product is its utility to all of society, not a single person.
stop trying to rebrand subjective theory of value

A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference.[2] Neither are we here concerned to know how the object satisfies these wants, whether directly as means of subsistence, or indirectly as means of production.

Every useful thing, as iron, paper, &c., may be looked at from the two points of view of quality and quantity. It is an assemblage of many properties, and may therefore be of use in various ways. To discover the various uses of things is the work of history.[3] So also is the establishment of socially-recognized standards of measure for the quantities of these useful objects. The diversity of these measures has its origin partly in the diverse nature of the objects to be measured, partly in convention.

The utility of a thing makes it a use value.[4] But this utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use value, something useful. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities. When treating of use value, we always assume to be dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens of watches, yards of linen, or tons of iron. The use values of commodities furnish the material for a special study, that of the commercial knowledge of commodities.[5] Use values become a reality only by use or consumption: they also constitute the substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that wealth. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange value.

Ignore this post. It seems Marx has two definitions of utility which no one differentiated in this discussion (general utility and personal utility).

Only because money would become frivolous and redundant, not because you decide not to use it. You don't just abolish money, conditions must be that money serves no purpose.

Abolition of money comes with the abolition of the value form. Its necessary for communism.

Well okay then.

Third post in the thread is basically this

You should read Capital. It's not terribly difficult.

Is general utility of a commodity the aggregate of each individual's subjective use-value of a commodity?

General utility is the utility implied by the fact certain people have a want for a commodity.

I'm not the guy your replying to but it is pretty hard. I hardly understand the chapters on relative and absolute surplus value honestly.

No "general utility" is more like binary value and is not indicairve of price.
example: Does society use food, yes and it's extremely usefull, (if we don't eat we die) Still food is ususally cheap. Does society use diamond rings, yes they are expensive as all hell and serve almost no purpose. Do we use foot dust, No.

So as long as one person finds use for it, it has utility. I don't see how this is not subjective and does not effect the market?

"Does it have utility" is a binary question and does not reflect the market because it doesn't give you price-predictive information.
A thing has to have utility to sell on the market but not all things with utility have a sale price.

If a thing has to have utility to sell on the market, then it affects the market by the very existence of utility (no utility = not supplied to market), regardless whether it is price-predictive or not.

Also,

Why would anyone attempt to sell something that will not sell? This is not a good business model.

Why are lolberts always trying to reduce society wide economic relations to two people.

Because they're brainlets.

Because they are not. Stop strawmanning.

There are lots of things wrong with Karl Marx's views, but this is not among them

He wasn't an idiot though, utility can be subjective even though there's such thing as the "best tool" for a certain application

No, things can be suplied and never bought because they were deemed not usefull. Labour that produces things which are not bought creates no value. This usefulness is objective as it is represented in the acquisition or not of a commodity.

Animating a poor fool into fighting for their "working class" status is a self-reinforcing indictment. The demagogic spewers of human waste who make such delcarations are always careful not to conflate "mobilizing" with "social mobility."

Stop trying to make this into some kind of identity politics bait Holla Forumstard.

And yet we can also find things in which we have a great amount of utility but are not sold on the market.

What's the use of subjective utility theory again?

Legit question. How does Marx answer the issue of labor being zero for a good that is valuable? For example, finding gold bars made by no one?

There's a distinction between "value" and "utility"; something can take no effort at all to produce and be exceptionally useful (common knowledge, language, land, the Sun, the atmosphere (though it's worth noting that capitalism destroys this type of stuff)), and something can be very difficult to produce but be near useless (digging ditches to fill them in, breaking windows, mud pies).

We use "value" to refer to "how difficult it is to make", and "utility" to refer to "how useful it is". The reason we say value is objective, then? When we say that, we mean that it can be determined scientifically. The reason it can be determined scientifically is that, under a capitalist system, firms that consistently are unable to sell their goods for more than a certain price cease to exist, as they go bankrupt.

This is what is meant by "objective value"; firms cannot sell below their cost of production in the long run or they cease to exist. Now, they occasionally do sell below their cost of production as a strategy, but that is only to enable them to raise their margin elsewhere.

The way I like to talk about communism is that it's the "abolition of rent"; all goods being exchanged for exactly what they took to create and not a bit more. Of course, there's issues with this - varying prices constitute a rationing system allowing goods to flow to the "right people" (both those who demand them enough to be willing to sacrifice a higher share of other goods, and those who are wealthy and therefore theoretically productive enough to be able to offer a high price), and moreover provide an incentive for firms to adjust their behavior to provide demanded goods, both of which are issues we've put a lot of time into - but it's worth noting that capitalism has it's lion's share of issues apart from merely aesthetically not liking rent. Capitalism crushes "common goods" like those I mentioned earlier, wastes a ton of productivity in useless "industries" like advertising, financial services, and luxury goods, doesn't really do a good job judging contribution since the wealthy are by a very large margin rentier parasites and not those who actually produce things, and through the existence of power structures leads to all sorts of "corruption" in the social sphere (having to suck up to your boss, the bureaucracy you have to untangle to get things done in general).

If you could magically conjure gold bars out of thin air, they would contain the same value as any other gold bars, as long as other people did not have the same ability as you. Gold bars would still require the same socially necessary labor time to produce for everyone else. If you were to flood the market with your magically generated gold bars, the price of gold would obviously dwindle accordingly.

Replace "and therefore theoretically productive enough" with "(and therefore theoretically productive enough to matter more to society)"; it's wealthy that is linked with "to be able to offer a high price", not that clause, and that clause needed more explanation anyhow.

Examples?

What about marginal utility? What is the explanation of marginal utility for communism?

You should read Capital.
Marx mentions both. That is why I got confused.

Because it gains the same labor value that other socially traded commodities gain when it's put into the market.

When was the last time you paid for air?
Or do you feel that it's not really that worth paying for?

air, gravity etc.

its the social average amount of time it takes to make those goods.

Also, yes, we can find examples easy in which people would need to pay for air. If we start talking about being in space, or underwater, or simply in a polluted enough area, we might have a case in which we need to labor for and pay for air.

I'm pretty sure marginal utility is just important for determining how entities make economic decisions; something planners, producers and economists will need to keep in mind for sure under communism, but not really serving any value as a critique of capitalism other than perhaps about how inequality is inefficient because of diminishing marginal utility.

The thing about capitalism is that firms, as ruthless profit-maximizers, always seek new ways to sell something that was previously free. As such, I doubt you can find something that isn't sold somewhere in the world. However, the idea of a "common good" is overwhelmingly common throughout human experience. The most obvious examples are the sun and the atmosphere; both of them are absolutely essential for every aspect of your life but yet for thousands of years no one paid a cent for them. Now, firms have in various ways sought to commoditize such resources and will continue to do so until capitalism is abolished, but that isn't anything but another critique of capitalism; simply put, absolutely every facet of natural life would break if everything that was used had to first be sold and bought.

Ironically enough, lefties want market-based solutions to environmental degradation such as carbon trading, "renewable energy" and "women's healthcare." Lefties are dying for these because only corporate welfare can keep solar and wind manufacturers afloat.

Was Marx referring to his own book?

I don't understand what you're trying to say; What gave you the impression that we (who are leftists, not liberals) thought that carbon trading was a sufficient solution to climate change? What's market-based about renewable energy? What's market based about women's healthcare? And yes, it is certainly true that the market will not put a high enough premium on environmental health to sufficiently transform the economics of power generation and manufacturing, so some external actor needs to step in, preferably at the forefront of a communist revolution but possibly at the wheel of a capitalist state, in the latter case of which subsidies, taxes, and fines are the only tools available to solve the problem; those mechanisms would take place within a market but they certainly aren't "market-based".

The free market will fix it!

yeah, desperate bids to work within the system so that we have a few more years before we fall off a point of no return is the epitome of left wing hypocrisy

Bro just average it lmao. Anything that is subjective can be made objective by aggregating and averaging.

nigga what

Not you personally, people who pretend to speak for le Marxism
Everyone wants to sell you solar/wind generators, bicycles and electric cars. No one wants to pull you off the grid (and off the Internet of Things). No one wants to sell you a solar oven, for example.
It's not health-"care" or health-"coverage." Call it for what it is – health insurance.
I thought your "revolution" was supposed to lift all boats above the pettiness of reformism.
They're "radically" structured to rely on market exchange.

please don't make me defend my unthinking shitposts
Okay, let's do an easy analogy. Taste in music is subjective. I don't listen to hip hop, any labour that is put into producing it is waster for all I care. But because music taste is subjective there's a whole bunch of hip hop fans out there. If you polled all music fans, you could construct a map of what the average music preferences in the community are, and consequently, what kind of music output you would need to meet the tastes of the population. You went from individual subjective taste to an objective communal need. And don't confuse this with a market! The market is where music production is driven by the taste of the general population filtered through market exchange, where not just tastes but tastes multiplied by disposable income is what gives a production signal. If few people with with money like this or that style, it will be hard to bring that style to market. This does not mean that few people like or even produce that style, only that it cannot thrive on the market. Now of course music is a bad example because here the producers are dependent on creativity and not quite as easy to turn on or off as a production line but fuck it.

You never got rid of the subject nor did you create (or transfer to) an object in this

oxygen tanks for people with breathing problems, already happens.

okay you got me, I tried to use a pithy phrase to express that the subjectivity of certain kinds of utility is not an argument for markets and failed

...

Dat pic

That's like saying the average american makes $50k a year.

Not really but thanks for trying

Except you can make any amount of money but you sooner or later get full from eating.

Actually compressed air and its components are sold in the market. Gravity is inherit in mass, which can also be sold.

Air in use by me, would require my lungs, which ultimately means caloric intake to fuel respiration, and hence a market for food.

Don't be silly, neither of these statements is a rebuttal. The point was that there are useful things you can get for free, and whether these useful things can be also an input into producing something which can be sold for money or not doesn't change that fact.

Yes, clearly there were some people eating 3 million calories a day pulling up the average.

all those calories came from corn and alcohol

Taking enough ethanol in as significant energy supply probably means you'd be dead within two days.
If anything, the blood-vessel-dilating effect of alcohol would cause you to lose more heat, meaning a net loss of energy in the body.
Also, where are the facts, you fucking brainlet?

"Being an object of utility" is an objective fact, attested by the fact that the thing is traded. Value is a feature of trade.

...

...