/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>30415329
>thinking exchange value is "immutable" or "constant"
>thinking the same of exchange value
(picrel) Exchange value is changing representation of the use-values (the use cases satisfied by the properties of the commodity itself, properties aren't changing) ie intrinsic value. He then goes into his labor units theory being the property of commodities that give value. He conveniently leaves out natural resources (no labor involved but still having exchange value) and non-reproducible goods (having a fluctuating exchange value not at all based on labor input).

>thinking labour units are made up
They are. Marx's insistence that skilled labor are just multiples of simple labor are arbitrary and describe no actual homogenous units of labor we can observe. His further insistence that they are just an average of the total labor of specific industries is just further arbitrary logic that he imposes to prove the nonsensical labor theory of value.

>thinking you need to accept everything marx says in Vol.3 to agree with the labour theory of value
So only some parts of Capital are worth reading and considering? You've just conceded the contradiction but want to cling to the premise. Either you have the labor theory of value and disparate profit rates or, as Marx concedes in vol3, rates are equalized and must toss out his theory of value.