/lit/ - Literature

luckily marxists stopped existing in any significant way over 3 decades ago

>>21251200
Marx's value theory is more than just a monetary theory of value.

>>21251200
Thomas sowell in his book Marxism said that Marx's theory of value is misunderstood, in other words Marx wasn't that set on it, Marx called it a principle not a hard set"law".

>>21251200
I don't understand what this pseud is babbling about, pic rel. explains some functions of money (~The case against the fed)

>>21251200
marx never heard of onlyfans

>>21251200
They really waste paper on printing this fucking gobbledygook

>>21251200
You can’t have a serious discussion about Marx, or even attempt to refute his claims, unless you’ve read all his works at least a hundred times.

>>21251200
>The usual “Marxist” value theory that alleges that value is already completely determined by “socially necessary labor-time” is also a pre-monetary value theory.
no it's not, because socially necessary labour-time is only established through generalized exchange of the products of labour, which, if generalized, will necessarily be monetary

>>21252777
Fuck that then. Might as well embrace capitalism.

Why is LTV so stupid?
Can it explain why a dot on a canvas can sell for like a million?

Why are Newton's laws of motion so stupid?
Can they explain why a dot on a canvas can sell for like a million?

>>21253658
tax evasion

>>21253658
They can't, but Marxists evade the question by pointing out that art in the sense you're using the term is not a reproducible commodity and the LTV does not apply to non-reproducible commodities. Once art becomes something that is a reproducible commodity like say in Graphic Design, it can become a reproducible commodity, but that's not how you meant the term presumably.

>>21255860
All economic theories do this. We have elastic, and inelastic goods, for example. This is what's so silly about Economics as a hard science. When you step back and look at the high-level view, what you're doing is setting up laws, but then those laws have exceptions, and so you set up laws for those exceptions, but then those laws have their own exceptions so you need laws for those exceptions. It never ends. So eventually, you just have to ask "are any of these 'laws' actually 'laws'?" Obviously not. These are theories and theories with many caveats. Equating them with Newton's "laws" (the lawfulness of these laws aside) makes no sense.

>>21253658
Labour time determines the value of things when people aren't idiots. You can get an idiot to buy a thing for well outside its value but you probably can't get a million idiots to do it, Then again magic healing crystals exist so maybe you can.

>>21255860
>but Marxists evade the question by pointing out
you mean answer the question
>>21255873
>So eventually, you just have to ask "are any of these 'laws' actually 'laws'?"
yes. the fact that every inquiry must have limited extent and that there will be exceptions that won't be captured by its results doesn't mean that the inquiry can't determine general regularities that those exceptions are exceptions from
>Equating them with Newton's "laws" (the lawfulness of these laws aside) makes no sense.
nobody is equating them. but they're obviously comparable, otherwise you wouldn't have to add the qualification. after all, Newton's laws also have exceptions and only apply "generally" in a certain sense, just like the law of value applies only "generally" in slightly different sense
>>21255898
it's not a matter of being an idiot. if there's a sudden shortage of food in your area and its price correspondingly skyrockets to 10x its value, you'll still buy it for that price, provided you have the money. the idiot will be the person who starves just because he refuses to pay a price that's well above the value.

>>21256005
>>but Marxists evade the question by pointing out
>you mean answer the question
My theories are right as long as you ignore all these situations where my theories are wrong!

>>21256085
you confuse a theory not applying to something with the theory being wrong about something within its area of application. a distinction which is recognized even by the post I was responding to >>21255860 (in contradiction with itself), when it says "the LTV does not apply to ..."

>>21252629
is this rothbard's what has gov done to our money?

>>21251200
Marx literally thought that money, in the long run, was a commodity (gold) with a cost of production reducible to labour terms (gold mining). Obviously if you drop that assumption things get a lot weirder and his entire theory falls apart in a lot of ways... same thing with austrian business cycle theory, drop one stupid axiom and noting makes sense.

>>21252629
Rothbard is even stupider than Marx. His entire idea banks once upon a time were just warehouses of private gold isn't empirically true and every instance of full reserve gold banking in history was just the result of government regulations not a spontaneous market outcome, crypto if anything is enough to refute most of those ideas

>>21253658
>Why is LTV so stupid?
As a theory of long run relative prices it's not really any stupider than the alternatives.

>Can it explain why a dot on a canvas can sell for like a million?
Sure, things with a totally fixed supply exist and the rent they can command is a deduction off of societies surplus production. An economy has some physical output of goods which is the real constraint on rent. The theoretical relationship between the sort of nominal wealth and ridiculous prices you see in the art world and such is a lot less problematic than say the price of land.

>the ramblings of someone who never held a job in their lives, never studied economics, never ran a business, never provided for themselves, and lived off his rich boyfriends father's money
everyone who ever took this guy seriously should kill themselves

>>21256621
That's a weak criticism. He was more read than contemporary academics, was involved in Engels business accounting and worked as a freelance journalist.

Meanwhile Stirner ran a milk coop into the ground and died after getting stung by some sort of tiny bug

>>21256262
Obviously he does that. But he need Marx to be wrong. Otherwise his little alienated world, whatever flavor of Capitalism he likes, from "traditional" Capitalism, to "liberal" Capitalism, crumbles.

>>21256621
>the ramblings of a wage-slave posting in a decadent extremist forum

Yes bro, please, enlighten us on how Marx bad.

>>21256541
>Marx literally thought that money, in the long run, was a commodity (gold) with a cost of production reducible to labour terms (gold mining).
Marx characterized money by a set of functions (measure of value, means of circulation, means of payment, etc.). he did recognize that the base form and one prevalent in his time was commodity money, and based his basic illustrations on that, but he also admitted different/higher forms of money. he never claimed that money as used generally will not develop past commodity money.

>>21256811
No, I'm going to be stubborn and insist that Marx never thought a form of non-commodity money could become or remain long as money. He had a pretty crude fixed monetarist/loanable funds/hard public budgets constraints idea on capitalism ironically and that was necessary for him to insist capitalism wasn't reformable and doomed

>>21256940
nah, at most that's just what he focused on in the things that he got to write, because he wanted to deal with the basic forms properly before going into their further development
>It is clear, however, that with the development of labour productivity and hence of production on a large scale, (1) markets expand and become further removed from the point of production, (2) credit must consequently be prolonged, and (3) as a result, the speculative element must come more and more to dominate transactions.... The development of the production process expands credit, while credit in turn leads to an expansion of industrial and commercial operations.
etc.
and if you take into account the expansion of production between 1880 and 2022, it's pretty clear that the kinds of things he's saying already allow for stuff to get pretty "unconstrained". he just didn't prioritize dealing with such a perspective, because he had tons of more fundamental work to finish. and obviously he also hoped capitalism will end sooner than 1.5+ centuries later

>>21256621

So, basically almost every other old philosopher?

>>21256742
there is no such thing as extremism. Marx bad because he caused Marxists, then again, he was just a product of liberal enlightenment and the fetishization of liberty

>>21255873
economics is a ritual fundamentally based on expectations.

>>21251200
why are you people using a paragraph taken from the intro of a book as if it was the book itself? LMAO

>>21256464
The title of the book is literally the case against the fed, but funnily enough it isn't included in some of his "official" bibliographies kek. It scares the shit the establishment.

>>21257040
>marx was a product of is time and place
Very marxist of you, nice!

Heinrich is a massive pseud. Theories are only useful insofar they have real world application. None of what Marx or Heinrich ever said had real world application.

>>21256005
Answer, reply, respond, whatever. The point is they contradict themselves by explaining the law is not really a law.

>>21256005
There is no economic regularity to point to, only a mountain of exceptions.

>>21256262
Then what is the area of application? If there's a certain area of application/regularity, what is it? There aren't any.

>>21257066
Correct. And this is the hidden genius of Marx. Consider that one side of this argument to refute Marx is that value is somehow agreed upon and not necessarily labor value, but what if everyone agreed Marx was right?

>>21251200
Marx's value theory is more than just a monetary theory of value.

>>21253658
I see this often. LTV and Marxism generally deal with general tendencies, not with some particular, border cases. Think in terms of the entire economy, not just one little sector rich people use to evade taxes

>>21251210
More than 20% of researchers within the social sciences identify as marxist. Keep coping cuck

>>21251200
Marx thought money was the phenomenal form of the true value of the commodity. He was retarded. Some marxists think this is all irrelevant and that all that matters is some old dying boomer owns property that you don’t. Envy and it’s-not-fair, in other words. Marxism has always been stupid

>>21256262
LTV doesn’t apply to anything because labor has no true value. Value is subjective.

>>21258457
they object contradicts itself, not the Marxists who describe it.
because there is a real contradiction between 1) prices having to regulate division of labour, which means they need to have defined proportions determined by the conditions of production, and 2) the price in any given act of sale, to become a reality, needing only the buyer and seller to have a certain whim and the former to have the required ability to pay, and nothing else.
this real contradiction in the object means that the law it follows will not be able to perfectly reflect the price in every act of sale. yet it will still reflect price generally, because 1) must overall prevail over accidental whims, etc., for society based on buying and selling to reproduce itself.
but this is not a contradiction in the law. this is only a limitation of how the law applies. and it's a condition that actually makes the law applicable, because if the law said something "more", it would stop describing the object according to how it really behaves.
>>21258487
there is economic regularity. I can travel pretty much everywhere, and I'm overwhelmingly likely to find that a loaf of bread will be cheaper there than a bicycle there. and this is a regularity that can be explained.
brushing it off as just random is serious scientific cowardice. because in normal circumstances everyone would immediately agree that there are such regularities. the only context in which people don't, is when they need to own Marxists on the internet without putting much effort and they're willing to sacrifice their common sense for that purpose.
>>21258495
the area of application is prices, but not in the sense of determining price of every single transaction perfectly, but in the sense of determining that which underlies prices, i.e., that from which individual prices fluctuate in response to relative fluctuations in supply and demand.
and in the case of a $1 million dollar painting this becomes useless for that particular case, because due to the extremely and persistently limited supply, the fluctuation itself overtakes the entirety of the price, so that what the law determines, i.e., the quantity from which it is a fluctuation from, becomes as good as irrelevant.
>>21259849
it has no value, but it creates value, since value is just a social relation of individuals engaging in division of labour.

>>21259888
>it creates value
"Can" create value to some people. Value is often very independent of labor, and I mean value in a very general sense. The economic view of value imo is loaded with bullshit, often focused exclusively on prices, costs of labor, etc. I just hate economists.

>>21259747
>Think in terms so general, details can't be discussed.

>>21259764
Neo marxists

>>21260472
>"Can" create value to some people.
it can create value that's socially-recognized, i.e., valid in general, regardless of the will of any single individual.
if a price stands in the way between you and access to something, this is true whether you like that fact or or not, and it's true whether you personally even want the particular good or not.
>Value is often very independent of labor, and I mean value in a very general sense.
we're talking about value in the economic sense. this thread is about a book about a book called Capital, a book concerning economy
as for value in a general sense, you should ask yourself if you aren't by chance projecting an economic concept onto other areas of life.
the word "value" itself comes from a proto-indo-european word meaning "to rule / strong, powerful". and it's clear that in a society where private property and rule exist, the power to rule consists in monopolization of wealth constituting economic value. moral value, etc., is only secondary, it's derived from norms of behaviour that favour sustaining that rule (or negatively: from norms that favour revolutionary abolition of this rule).
>I just hate economists.
me too, but I also don't ignore the fact that economy forms the basis of society and it's necessary to understand how it works in order to understand how society works. in fact this is in opposition to economists, because they aren't interested in getting to the bottom of the matter, because when you do, you discover that the rule of which the economists are ideologists of is doomed to be abolished
>>21260509
who says they can't be discussed? for example, Marx discusses a case analogous to expensive paintings in Vol. 3 of Capital.

I don't see why Marx is praised so much. His insights on capitalism seem like things that can be gleaned by just about anyone -- and can be gleaned without ever having read him.

He's not even the first historical materialist, either, but people make it out like he's the godfather.

>>21260564
for every person who claims what he wrote was banally true there are 10 people who claim that everything he wrote was banally false because it was all based on obviously false premises

>>21252629
>Another grave problem with a world of barter is that it is impossible for any business firm to calculate how it's doing, whether it is making profits or incurring losses... How in the world could you figure out how well you are doing?

This paragraph reflects the deepest moral sickness in the world

>>21260552
>who says they can't be discussed?
See >>21253658 + >>21259747

>>21260552
>a book concerning economy
heh, it doesn't concern just the economy when it tries claiming commodities and labor have values that they don't, namely a value that is neither exchange value nor use value. Marx needs value to have a general use, not just an economic one. A brick can't be worth just 2 cents; it must have a worth beyond the price to sell it. Price fluctuations and subjective views on product use make exchange and use value irrelevant when talking of the true worth of a product or of labor. This is why a worker can't complain when the product he helped produced gets sold for more than he was paid. Its not the buyers fault he could get a better bargain than the worker could in getting paid.

>>21260879
In summary: economic values mean nothing. No one thinks of things just in terms of price. Maybe greedy people do, but not so. So economic value leaves out several dimensions of how people interact with commodities.

>>21260579
Nice platitude, but it isn't making a normative claim.

>>21251200
I wish Kołakowski were still alive so he could catalogue every new iteration of "nuh-uh, you just don't understand Marx correctly like I do." It's gotten worse, too. This time it isn't even describing something with the appearance of substance, he's just pointing to one small part described in the value-form and declaring that THIS is the operative factor in Marx's theoryconceptnebulousplaceholderbullshit.

>>21259764
Pretty sure it's less than 5% in the social sciences and around 20% in the humanities.

>>21260827
this doesn't say that it can't be discussed. it just doesn't come under "LTV" and it's not relevant to the functioning of the economy as a whole. but it can be discussed and it has been discussed.
>>21260879
>it doesn't concern just the economy when it tries claiming commodities and labor have values that they don't, namely a value that is neither exchange value nor use value
this is economic value, so it concerns the economy.
and this economic value is related to both exchange-value and use-value, because exchange-value is only the form of appearance of the value in question, and use-value is the necessary condition for an object having the value in question.
>Marx needs value to have a general use, not just an economic one. A brick can't be worth just 2 cents; it must have a worth beyond the price to sell it.
but this worth beyond the price IS ECONOMIC VALUE. it's just the general economic value as opposed to the momentary and incidental economic value represented directly by price.
or, in other words, price is only the particular form of appearance of economic value as such, i.e., price is how general economic value appears in particular items / particular transactions.
>Price fluctuations and subjective views on product use make exchange and use value irrelevant when talking of the true worth of a product or of labor.
no, it's the opposite: fluctuations and subjective views are irrelevant in the face of general exchange-value and use-value. because on the scale of society fluctuations and subjective deviations cancel out, just like random fluctuations of particles in a gas cancel out and you can describe the movement of the gas with general equations that will not be true for each individual particle of the gas at every moment.
>This is why a worker can't complain when the product he helped produced gets sold for more than he was paid.
he can complain about whatever he wants. what you mean to say is that his complaint doesn't have economic validity. but this is exactly BECAUSE according to the laws of capital, wage = value of labour-power, not DESPITE it.
>Its not the buyers fault he could get a better bargain than the worker could in getting paid.
according to whose morality?
>>21260911
>economic values mean nothing
on the contrary, economic value underlies even the few correct things you've managed to express. among other things.
>No one thinks of things just in terms of price.
no one said otherwise.

>>21251407
>Thomas sowell
Who?

>>21253015
Making this argument completely subsumes the relationships of commodities to money, something that Marx struggled to describe and had to patch over with seven largely arbitrary forms of trade. This is a small part of the reason why economics moved past classical Marxism—it could not provide parsimonious descriptions of economic activity. In Marxism, everything is a game of adding post-hoc theory to explain inconsistencies that are created by centrally flawed dogma. There is no young Marx-old Marx dichotomy, just a Marx who realized that he had to cover his ass.

>>21260552
>Marx discusses a case analogous to expensive paintings in Vol. 3 of Capital.
Are you referring to Ch. 14, Part IV where he mentions luxury production? He claims that "variable capital makes up a considerable portion of the total capital" of luxury goods but that doesn't seem to apply to a "dot on a canvas" painting that sells for millions.

>>21260986
>because exchange-value is only the form of appearance of the value in question
No it isn't. This is absolutely pure speculation and it goes beyond economics into philosophy. Exchange value is a reflection of the will of the buyer and seller. That is all.
>but this worth beyond the price IS ECONOMIC VALUE
You call it economic value, I just call it value. It is called 'value' because it is metaphysical, and must be handled in a philosophical sense, not just through an appeal to general human behavior. To see that an object as an inherent worth of X is a metaphysical statement, going beyond what economic generalities of human behavior have to offer. To call it economic value is to call any human moral action economic value. We do not kill people (for example) because we think their lives have value. Value is moral by nature. So now economic-value = moral value, and so now proofs need to be more than just bits of human anthropology.

>and it's not relevant to the functioning of the economy as a whole.
>because on the scale of society
Yes, enlarge the scale so now the details can't be discussed. See >>21260827

The critical issue with using economic arguments when discussing value is that value is metaphysical, so not proven by appealing to general human behavior or appeals to common sense. Marx in fact uses a metaphysical version of value, which is how he gets away with his arguments. But he never proves how establishes, for example, how exchange-value is the "phenomenal" form of a commodities actual worth. It is pure speculation.
>he can complain about whatever he wants. what you mean to say is that his complaint doesn't have economic validity.
No he can't complain because the two interactions are different. In the first you have the worker who failed at bargaining properly with his employer, and in the second you have the employer who succeeded in getting rid of his product for more than he paid his employee. These are separate interactions, not actually related to one another, since the product in question has no inherent worth through which we can rightfully say "Yes the worker should be paid X amount since product has the true worth of X amount".

>>21261025
mostly empty assertions. and where it manages to not be empty, it's completely wrong: the "parsimonious" descriptions of economic activity in economics can afford to be so parsimonious because they are pure tautologies, so they aren't descriptions of economic activity at all. beyond that, there's just a bunch of dirty models that need to be overturned every time something new happens
and economics never moved past Marxism. economics always represented the interests of the bourgeoisie, and Marxism the interests of the revolutionary class opposed to the bourgeoisie. economics however did move past actually studying its object as soon as this study reached the point where any further discoveries became directly opposed to the interests of the class which economists represent.
>>21261046
no, I'm referring to ch. 46 where he discusses monopoly price of premium wine
>>21261087
>This is absolutely pure speculation
it isn't. as I already said, it's patently obvious that exchange quantities present regularities. and they must for society to reproduce. so positing something that underlies them and gives them this regularity is not pure speculation but a straightforward deduction from empirical observation.
>Exchange value is a reflection of the will of the buyer and seller. That is all.
no, it isn't all, because there's a further underlying reason why the buyers and sellers pretty consistently will bicycles to be dearer than loaves of bread.
>>21261087
>You call it economic value, I just call it value.
no, we're talking about different things
>It is called 'value' because it is metaphysical
says who?
>To see that an object as an inherent worth of X is a metaphysical statement
but that's not what we're talking about. to see that an object has a social economic value is not a metaphysical statement
>To call it economic value is to call any human moral action economic value
I don't call "it" economic value. "It" is some vague concept in your head I don't care about.
>We do not kill people because we think their lives have value.
no, we don't kill people because we have evolved to co-operate. some people abstract this fact into morality, but to say that morality is the cause of this is putting the matter on its head.
>Value is moral by nature
economic value isn't, which is what I refer to by the word "value"
>now economic-value = moral value
no, those are entirely separate concepts
>enlarge the scale so now the details can't be discussed
they can be discussed, they just don't determine the whole. and the whole is what we're aiming to understand.
[there follows a part where you repeat the arguments addressed above.]
>since the product in question has no inherent worth through which we can rightfully say "Yes the worker should be paid X amount since product has the true worth of X amount".
but his labour-power has social worth, and according to laws of capital we can rightfully say that his wage has no relation to the amount of value he produced

>>21261158
> exchange quantities present regularities.
But we're talking about the inherent and essential value of an object (a commodity), not a regularity. Someone behaving one way over there doesn't mean I have to behave the same way. It is useless using regularities and generalities to discuss what an object or process or commodity is actually worth.
> so positing something that underlies them and gives them this regularity is not pure speculation
It is speculation because you aren't directly proving the inherent worth of commodity or object in question, but rather appealing to whims of prices.
>because there's a further underlying reason why the buyers and sellers pretty consistently will bicycles to be dearer than loaves of bread.
And those underlying reasons are all reflections of the individual wills of buyers and sellers.
>says who?
It is metaphysical because it is a quality that is not observable in itself. You say an object has value, but cannot show the value in itself, and only discuss it indirectly through appealing to something different (prices).
>we don't kill people because we have evolved to co-operate.
That was just an example. Regardless, people don't use evolution to convince themselves not to kill someone. "I won't do X because I evolved not to do X" said no one ever.
>economic value isn't
When you refer to an object as having value different than its price and different than how an individual person thinks of it, then you are using the general term for value, and speaking of value as an essential property of that object. Appealing to regularities and generalities of human behavior doesn't prove that X commodity has Y value, in the same way it doesn't prove that X object has Y property. Value is a property after all. Regularities of human tastes don't prove properties of objects.
>but his labour-power has social worth
So the fuck what. "Social worth" = appeal to common sense. Nice job. "I need to sell this at X because everyone else thinks so" makes zero sense.
>and the whole is what we're aiming to understand.
No, a generality is what YOU are aiming to understand. The whole includes every little detail. But every time we discuss the details, it is "No, we must enlarge things so those get forgotten".
>to see that an object has a social economic value is not a metaphysical statement
Yes it is, because objects do not contain the property of "social economic value". Does the circle contain the property of "social economic value"? If so, please provide proof of that "social economic value". What does that value look like? How big is it? Does it have a color? Value as a property of an object is always metaphysical. Value as a reflection of peoples wants is not, but it is also useless for the marxist, since now all "exploitation" amounts to workers being bad at bargaining.

>>21261158
>no, I'm referring to ch. 46 where he discusses monopoly price of premium wine
Can you explain your analogy?

>>21261158
I'm not going to let you sidestep the fact that the original argument being made was that Marx had a "monetary theory of value" when he very clearly saw the relationship of commodities to money as important enough to create, as you would describe, discrete "tautologies" of commodity trade.
>and economics never moved past Marxism. economics always represented the interests of the bourgeoisie, and Marxism the interests of the revolutionary class opposed to the bourgeoisie.
Mostly empty assertions. and where it manages to not be empty, it's completely wrong

>>21261217
>But we're talking about the inherent and essential value of an object (a commodity), not a regularity
the regularity of prices of the particular specimens of the commodity is the result of the commodity having a general value
>Someone behaving one way over there doesn't mean I have to behave the same way
no, but the fact that you and a guy in New Zealand both wear shoes might have something to do with the underlying fact of you being specimen of the same biped species
>It is useless using regularities and generalities to discuss what an object or process or commodity is actually worth
it's not, since the regularities in and the generalization of its various particular prices constitute its actual worth
>It is speculation because you aren't directly proving the inherent worth of commodity or object in question, but rather appealing to whims of prices.
I am directly proving it exists by pointing out that that there are regularities to prices, which arbitrary whims can't account for
>And those underlying reasons are all reflections of the individual wills of buyers and sellers
no, the individual wills are the reflections of the reasons: the reason why sellers consistently price bicycles over loaves of bread lies in facts beyond their individual wills
>That was just an example
yes, and it illustrates well how you're reversing the real relation between material conditions and morality
>Regardless, people don't use evolution to convince themselves not to kill someone
correct: this is regardless of anything I've said
>Regularities of human tastes don't prove properties of objects.
regularities in prices humans pay for different objects prove those objects have certain general, socially-assigned economic values
>"Social worth" = appeal to common sense
appeal to economics facts obtaining in the society in question, which can be used to determined what is rightful according to the economic laws ruling that society
>"I need to sell this at X because everyone else thinks so" makes zero sense.
"I need to sell this at less-or-equal-to X because everyone else thinks so" makes perfect sense though, since you need a willing buyer to sell
>Yes it is, because objects do not contain the property of "social economic value"
they don't contain it physically, but they're assigned it by society on some conditions
>What does that value look like? How big is it? Does it have a color?
it's not a physical property but social
>>21261249
both are products "of quite exceptional quality" that however "can be produced only in a relatively small quantity". their producers can receive for them "excess over the value of [their] product" which "is determined purely and simply by the wealth and the preference of fashionable wine-drinkers [dot-on-canvas-enjoyers/tax-evaders/money-launderers]"
>>21261260
>I'm not going to let you sidestep the fact that the original argument being made was that Marx had a "monetary theory of value"
what does this even have to do with my post

>>21251200
Funny how Aristotle already prefigured and explained all of this retarded nonsense.

>>21251200
>"Substantialist” conceptions of value, which attempt to establish the existence of value within individual objects,
The theory of marginal utility does not attempt to establish a value "within" individual objects; it is not a "pre-monetary" value theory. It is a psychological theory which imputes value making to human subjects. I don't know who wrote this nonsense but it does not seem like they understand even basic modern economics.

>>21261921
marginal utility doesn't presuppose money. this is basic modern economics

>>21261940
That does not make it a pre-monetary theory, nor a substantialist theory. Marginal utility is a psychological description of the buying and selling mechanism, particularly why people buy things at all. It does not claim to be able to derive the value of money from some substantial thing existing in reality.

>>21261901
>appeals to common sense to establish an object's value.
IOW commodities don't have a real value, just a common one amongst an arbitrary group of people, which means nothing and says nothing about how an employer should price his product nor about what a worker can rightfully demand in payment.
>it's not a physical property but social
IOW an appeal to common sense and "what everyone else thinks". You can't establish what things are truly worth, so you say "social". An employer doesn't need to care what the general population thinks his product is worth. You're so lost in generalities you forget that individuals can and often do ignore them. This all is a consequence of you being completely unable to demonstrate the true value of a commodity.
>the economic laws
Like marxist ass-pulls lol
>it illustrates well how you're reversing the real relation between material conditions and morality
You missed the point entirely. The value of a human being is metaphysical and not dependent on the price he/she is sold for, just as the value of a peanut is metaphysical and not dependent on the price it is sold for.
>since you need a willing buyer to sell
Yeah, a buyer and a seller is not "everyone else". Do you not know how special deals work?
>prove those objects have certain general, socially-assigned economic values
IOW not actual properties of those objects, just correlations in society, which is irrelevant for the individual relationship between buyer, seller, and worker.

Every single time you appeal to generalities, increasing the scope and saying "will here's a generality so..." None of this matters. Every one of these terms: social, general, regularity, whole - they all dodge the fundamental point. You can't establish what the true worth of a commodity or object is, so you can't establish whether or not a worker is getting cheated. Is 1 + 1 = 2 because "in general people think so and because of its socially-assigned economic value". No lol.

>>21262109
>That does not make it a pre-monetary theory
it does, that's clearly how he used the word
>>21262130
>IOW commodities don't have a real value, just a common one amongst an arbitrary group of people
their social value is their real value, since we're talking about economic value which is nothing but a social relation.
>which means nothing and says nothing about how an employer should price his product
it says how he does price it
>nor about what a worker can rightfully demand in payment
it says that the rightful (i.e., according with the law of value) wage equals the value of his labour power
>You can't establish what things are truly worth, so you say "social".
no, I say "social" because the economic value of commodities is a social relation
>An employer doesn't need to care what the general population thinks his product is worth
capitalists must care about they will get for their product from other people and about what they must pay in costs of production to other people. and on the scale of the economy those quantities are determined by the values of all those commodities.
>You're so lost in generalities you forget that individuals can and often do ignore them.
I don't ignore them. I'm just saying that on the scale of the economy their individual whims cancel out, and what's left to determine the general movement of the economy are the social-wide values.
>The value of a human being is metaphysical and not dependent on the price he/she is sold for
not the economic value of a slave or the economic value of the labour-power of a wage worker. and those are the only things close to "value of a human being" relevant to what I'm talking about
>Yeah, a buyer and a seller is not "everyone else".
it is on the scale of the whole economy
>IOW not actual properties of those objects
actual properties, only social.
>just correlations in society, which is irrelevant for the individual relationship between buyer, seller, and worker
it is relevant, because the individual economic relations ultimately proceed according to the general laws. just like the individual particles in a gas will ultimately move in the direction the gas moves, even if at any given moment an individual particle might be actually moving in the opposite direction.
>You can't establish what the true worth of a commodity or object is, so you can't establish whether or not a worker is getting cheated.
cheated according to whose conception of justice?
>Is 1 + 1 = 2 because "in general people think so and because of its socially-assigned economic value". No lol.
why would a mathematical equation need to be made true by the same kind of thing as an economic fact

>>21262445
>their social value is their real value, since we're talking about economic value which is nothing but a social relation.
No, when you speak of economic value as anything other than the individual opinion of the buyer and seller, you are speaking of value as a property of an object, which is not merely economic. Objects don't contain a property called value. If so, please show us what that property looks like. There is no absolute social value of something like corn, for example. Its just the opinions of the buyer and seller involved.
>it says how he does price it
No it doesn't lol. The employer prices how he wants, based on particular customers, not on "what everyone else thinks". You've never haggled with someone or convinced someone of a different price before.
>it says that the rightful (i.e., according with the law of value) wage equals the value of his labour power
No it doesn't. Labor has no true value, just the opinions of the worker. There are no "laws" of value. That was a very convenient ass-pull. May as well say "According to the laws of marx". All speculation.
>what's left to determine the general movement of the economy are the social-wide values.
This is false. Social wide values occur by individuals. Social-wide-values are not an organism or force that can determine anything. If so, please show us an example of social-wide-values being the direct cause of the change in economy, and not the individuals involved. Here you appeal to a generality, social-wide-values, as a spook to cover for your lack of explanation. "Oh I don't have an answer, so social-phenomena is the cause".
>it is on the scale of the whole economy
Also false.
>why would a mathematical equation need to be made true by the same kind of thing as an economic fact
Because appealing to social relations to determine the an object fact is illogical, no matter whether it is mathematics or the true worth of a commodity.
>actual properties, only social
Social properties are not properties of objects. They are opinions of people. You don't know what "property" means here. A dog has the property of two legs. A dog does not have a property of "value". If you sell a dog for 2 cents, it doesn't suggest anything about the true value of the dog.
>the economic value of commodities is a social relation
Yes, the value of a commodity is subjective. it is a social relation. The worker knows this and knows that the price his employer sells the product won't necessarily be the same as what he was paid since the product has no true worth. The social relation between employer customer is not the same as the social relation between worker and employer.
>not the economic value of a slave or the economic value of the labour-power of a wage worker.
The economic value is an opinion of the buyer and seller, so once again, irrelevant when determining the true worth of the labor or commodities involved. So any discussion of a "rightful wage" is also a matter of opinion.

>>21261901
>their producers can receive for them "excess over the value of [their] product"
Uh, no they can't. There is no "excess over the value of [their] product". Since value according to you is a social-relation, and the social-relation between dot-painting buyer and seller here affirms that the value is as its sold, then any price it is sold at is exactly what its value is, leaving no space for excess.

>>21262498
>you are speaking of value as a property of an object, which is not merely economic
economic value as a property of an object is merely economic
>There is no absolute social value of something like corn, for example
there is. it's what gives prices of corn regularity
>No it doesn't lol. The employer prices how he wants
and he wants according to his costs and according to how his competition prices, which all are ultimately determined by the values of the commodities in question
>You've never haggled with someone or convinced someone of a different price before.
yes and
>No it doesn't. Labor has no true value
labour-power has value, since it's a commodity
>There are no "laws" of value
there is. in capitalist society, buying/selling is an exchange of commodities of equivalent values
>All speculation.
no, it's based on factual deductions
>This is false. Social wide values occur by individuals. Social-wide-values are not an organism or force that can determine anything.
sure, and movement of a gas occurs by individual particles. that doesn't mean the gas doesn't have a general direction of movements and that general laws don't dictate this direction.
>If so, please show us an example of social-wide-values being the direct cause of the change in economy
decreases in the labour time socially necessary to produce manufactured products, compared with the products of agriculture where the decreases are limited due to dependence on natural conditions, causes the prices of manufactured products to fall relatively to the prices of agricultural products
>Because appealing to social relations to determine the an object fact is illogical
what
>Social properties are not properties of objects
they are. it's value OF {object X} etc.
>You don't know what "property" means here
you don't:
>An extrinsic (or relational) property is a property that depends on a thing's relationship with other things.

>If you sell a dog for 2 cents, it doesn't suggest anything about the true value of the dog.
if dogs usually sell for around 2 cents, then it suggests dogs are worth less than bicycles
>the value of a commodity is subjective. it is a social relation
it's objective since it depends on objective facts about the conditions of production of different things
>The worker knows this and knows that the price his employer sells the product won't necessarily be the same as what he was paid
yes and
>The social relation between employer customer is not the same as the social relation between worker and employer.
yes and
>The economic value is an opinion of the buyer and seller
it's not, it's a fact that in determines the will of buyers and sellers regarding the prices they exchange at
>So any discussion of a "rightful wage" is also a matter of opinion.
if it's to be rightful according to the law of value, then it's not a matter of opinion. if it's to be rightful according to what's in the employment contract plus the civil law, then it's also not a matter of opinion

>>21262565
>Since value according to you is a social-relation, and the social-relation between dot-painting buyer and seller here affirms that the value is as its sold
it's a social relation between all participants in the social division of labour, not exclusively between the one buyer and the one seller. start with whoever made the paint or the canvas and follow from there.

>>21262646
>law of value
pseud

>>21260579
No, overall profits simply reflect the economic development and increased standards of living. Not even communists deny that, they only say that profits should be divided differently. Without profits we would be still living on trees.

>>21262646
> it's what gives prices of corn regularity
I.e. the subjective opinion of buyer and seller. We know that. Useless for determining worker exploitation.
>labour-power has value, since it's a commodity
Has value from the perspective of buyer and seller, that is all. Since according to you it is a social-relation, nothing more.
>An extrinsic (or relational) property is
But we're not talking about extrinsic properties, since those cannot be used to determine the true value of a commodity. If so a contradiction is produced between the different prices that occur between different customers, buyers and sellers. A dog has the property of 2 cents over here and 3 cents over there, a contradiction. So an arbitrary scale is created to form a "trend", which is all your argument amounts to. Appealing to a social trend to determine value. The true value of the commodity in question is completely avoided, but needed for determining worker exploitation.
> it's a fact that in determines the will of buyers and sellers
No it doesn't. The will of buyer and seller is independent of an abstract ass-pull, such as economic value.
>if it's to be rightful according to the law of value
The law of value doesn't exist. It is an ass-pull. Buyer and seller do not acknowledge such an abstraction when buying and selling.
>no, it's based on factual deductions
No its based on bullshit you made up.
>buying/selling is an exchange of commodities of equivalent values
No it isn't. The true value of the commodities is not demonstrated through the separate act of an exchange between a buyer and seller. Is 1 now 2 because buyer and seller say so? No lol.

>>21262653
>it's a social relation between all participants in the social division of labour, not exclusively between the one buyer and the one seller
So its a relationship between an arbitrary (made up number by yourself) number of buyers and sellers. This still remains subjective, and a matter of opinion. Increasing the quantity of subjective actors doesn't create an objective value in labor, a commodity or anything. This is once again, an appeal to common sense.

As a matter of fact, your trick has become very clear. When we observe the subjective relationship between buyer and seller, you expand that to include many buyer and sellers, in hopes that will now make the value of the common exchange objective. It does not. This is an appeal to common sense, i.e. not an argument. It is also an appeal to trend lines. You think that social trends are determines the objective value of an object. This too is ridiculous and false. Social trend X over here says that corn is with 5 cents, yet social trend Y over there says it is worth 7 cents. So what's the true value of corn? Oh, perhaps we can arbitrary expand the social trend to include every human on earth, giving us an average number lol. It all goes back to you stretching the scale so that details cannot be discussed, so useless when determining anything between individuals.

>>21262646
Please show us the objective value of beer without appealing to common sense - i.e. without appealing to the following: social relations, subjective interactions at any scale, etc.

>>21262646
Your use of extrinsic property is telling here, since supposedly the cause of the extrinsic property of value for say corn is the opinion of the buyer/seller. This however does not in fact give an extrinsic property to the corn, since the relation that produced said property is tied to the subjective views of the buyer and seller, not an objective object in nature, such as say gravity or another chemical. IOW your use of extrinsic property is manipulative, since the relationship is with a subjective opinion giving the "property", and not an external object - a complete abuse of the term.

With this poor thinking in mind, we can now say that the element iron has the extrinsic value of blue because some people look at it and think it would look better if it were blue. Or gold would have the extrinsic value of tasty because some people think gold tastes good. In summary, when using an extrinsic "property" with a relation that is to a subjective opinion - whether that opinion is a social trend, a social relation, etc. - you are not describing an actual property of the commodity or object at all, since contradictions are immediately formed through differing opinions. You are simply using an ass-pull

>>21263633
>I.e. the subjective opinion of buyer and seller.
no, it's an objective fact that goes beyond the opinion of a single buyer or seller
>Has value from the perspective of buyer and seller, that is all
from the perspective of the society that needs some of its total labour for the specific tasks that require the specific labour-power.
>But we're not talking about extrinsic properties
we are. this is a thread about Marx's value theory, which is about a social property of products of labour
>A dog has the property of 2 cents over here and 3 cents over there, a contradiction.
it's not a contradiction if the property is extrinsic, relational. the property can be different in relation to each different extrinsic thing.
>Appealing to a social trend to determine value.
no, the value is why there is a regularity. it's just that this means you can also go the other way around and see evidence of value in there being the regularity. just like you can see evidence of gravity in an apple falling down, even if the apple falling down doesn't determine gravity but the other way around.
>The true value of the commodity in question is completely avoided
no, the true value is that which is being expressed by the different prices
>The will of buyer and seller is independent of an abstract ass-pull, such as economic value.
it's not, because the society within which the buyer and seller live can only reproduce itself if its products are bought and sold in proportions leading to the correct division of labour-power between all the private producers.
if they were sold according to arbitrary whim, bicycle producers would get too little money for their bicycles to be able to produce them again, and bread producers would get too much money and would spend it on making more bread than there's people to eat it or just on prostitutes and blow. as a result, capitalist society would ultimately not continue. the fact that this doesn't happen is because their wills are constrained by values of the things they deal with.
>Buyer and seller do not acknowledge such an abstraction when buying and selling.
they don't need to acknowledge it. I can't describe the exact neurobiological mechanisms that make me want to drink water, but that doesn't mean they aren't the thing that makes me want to drink water, rather than some pure will
>This still remains subjective, and a matter of opinion
no, it's not a matter of opinion but of social fact
>Increasing the quantity of subjective actors doesn't create an objective value in labor, a commodity or anything
it does, since if only two people existed, they wouldn't trade
>When we observe the subjective relationship between buyer and seller, you expand that to include many buyer and sellers
no, when we observe an entire functioning society with objective constraints, you narrow it to include just one buyer and seller
>You think that social trends are determines the objective value of an object.
no, I think the value determines the trends

>>21263651
>since supposedly the cause of the extrinsic property of value for say corn is the opinion of the buyer/seller
no, the single opinion is just a medium through which the social-wide property asserts itself in individual trades
>IOW your use of extrinsic property is manipulative, since the relationship is with a
the relationship can be with whatever I want. but your reasoning is built off a false premise anyway (see immediately above)
>Or gold would have the extrinsic value of tasty because some people think gold tastes good.
yes, it would have that property with relation to them
>In summary, when using an extrinsic "property" with a relation that is to a subjective opinion
no, the fact that people don't find gold tasty is due to objective biological and chemical facts, not due to an opinion. opinion is the name for the fact that some particular person doesn't find it tasty. but the fact they don't find it tasty isn't the same as the reason they don't find it tasty. the reason goes beyond the fact
>you are not describing an actual property of the commodity or object at all
I am. it is actually true that gold isn't tasty.

>>21263797
>>21263807
You literally think opinion and personal taste dictate the value of an object. Gold isn't tasty "because you think so".
>no, it's not a matter of opinion but of social fact
>Noo you can't sell that price because other people think you shouldn't!
Marxist thinking makes perfect sense.
> I think the value determines the trends
A contradiction. Before you said value is determined by social-relation (trend); now you say value determines the social-relation. Marxist logic.
> the fact that people don't find gold tasty is due to objective biological and chemical facts
People have different tastes. You need to accept that. Taste doesn't mean chemical interaction, it means preference, which is not tied to chemicals in the body. "I like that painting because the chemicals in my brain" said no one ever.

You mistake biological and chemical facts of the body with taste and will of a person. They are NOT the same. Is 1 + 1 = 2 because of the chemicals in my body? This is marxist thinking.

Marxists think the value of an object is determined by the collective tastes of everyone, by social trends, as if tastes are things that can be summed. "I can't like the taste of X because everyone else thinks so". "I can't sell this corn at this price because other people on the planet price it differently." Deep stuff

Still waiting on that objective value of corn without appeals to social relations, social trends, common sense, subjective tastes, etc.

>>21263797
>it does, since if only two people existed, they wouldn't trade
Holy shit this is a stupid statement.

> the true value is that which is being expressed by the different prices
>The true value is determined by the random opinions of people.
So the worker has no case, since the employer can sell at whatever price he wants. After all, the "true value is determined by different prices" and the seller (employer) determines those different prices
>if they were sold according to arbitrary whim, bicycle producers would get too little money for their bicycles to be able to produce them again
This is not true at all. Arbitrary whim doesn't mean a pattern can be found an exploited. It means that the whim itself does not dictate anything beyond a demand; it doesn't dictate the true worth of the product in question. Selling a product is in fact appealing arbitrary whims, whether that be for gizmos or for types of food.
>no, the value is why there is a regularity.
You just said the value is determined by the social-relation, the regularity. You can't keep your story straight lol.

>>21263917
>You literally think opinion and personal taste dictate the value of an object
I literally don't
>Gold isn't tasty "because you think so"
sure, gold is not-tasty because of its natural properties and the natural properties of homo sapiens
>>Noo you can't sell that price because other people think you shouldn't!
who are you quoting? I explained clearly that you can put things up for sale for whatever price you want. the point is the prices people will ultimately want to set will be dictated by external constraints.
>Before you said value is determined by social-relation (trend);
no, I said it IS a social relation. and I didn't say that it's a trend or that it's determined by a trend
>now you say value determines the social-relation
no, I'm still saying it IS a social relation. what I'm saying it determines is the trend in particular prices
>People have different tastes. You need to accept that
sure, and some people can lose their limbs, but that doesn't change the fact that homo sapiens is a biped species
>Taste doesn't mean chemical interaction, it means preference, which is not tied to chemicals in the body
it means preference determined by a biochemical interaction of the substance in question and specific body organs
>"I like that painting because the chemicals in my brain" said no one ever.
I'm pretty sure there are people who said that. but whether they did or not is irrelevant
>You mistake biological and chemical facts of the body with taste and will of a person
no, that's what you're doing when you pretend that humans not finding gold tasty has no objective explanation beyond pure will. that it has nothing to do with gold having no nutrients that the human body biologically needs, just with pure indepdenent will.
>Is 1 + 1 = 2 because of the chemicals in my body?
why would a mathematical equation need to be made true by the same kind of thing as a biochemical fact?
>>21263923
>Marxists think the value of an object is determined by the collective tastes of everyone
no, they think the value is determined by the social abstract labour time necessary to reproduce the given object
>Still waiting on that objective value of corn without appeals to social relations
then you'll keep waiting, because you won't find economic value of corn independent of social relations.
>>21263934
>So the worker has no case, since the employer can sell at whatever price he wants
case in what court?
>Arbitrary whim doesn't mean a pattern can be found an exploited
so what? if prices are arbitrary, then half of the producers won't get the necessary return to reproduce their commodities
>You just said the value is determined by the social-relation, the regularity
no, I said that value IS a social relation and that the regularity is how value asserts itself over individual deviations in single transactions
>You can't keep your story straight lol
you can't stop twisting my words to say the opposite of what they say, because you don't have any arguments lol

>>21264013
>sure, gold is not-tasty because of its natural properties and the natural properties of homo sapiens
People literally eat gold. It has a texture to it. hence people like it. Not up to you or "social relations".
>the point is the prices people will ultimately want to set will be dictated by external constraints.
No one is debating external factors are present. The point is that external constraints and subjective taste don't dictate the true worth of commodity, hence there is a distinction between the price and the product's worth. The worker can't complain about this.
>I'm still saying it IS a social relation
IOW you define things in a particular manner, creating a tautology. No value is not a "social relation" because one can value something independent of others opinions. Even between transactions of two people this is the case.
>why would a mathematical equation need to be made true by the same kind of thing as a biochemical fact?
Because you are using biological determinism as an argument for something that is not biological, namely value in itself. So 1 + 1 = 2 because "chemicals in the brain say so."
> that's what you're doing when you pretend that humans not finding gold tasty has no objective explanation beyond pure will
Humans do eat gold anon. It has a texture and there are many other reasons why people enjoy it. You need to accept this.
>then you'll keep waiting, because you won't find economic value of corn independent of social relations.
Because you can't determine the objective value of something without appealing to personal taste. In that case, the same is true for the worker who can't get his wages to match the price of the product, since after all, the tastes and opinions involved in those two interactions are different.
>no, I said that value IS a social relation
Well, it isn't. If it was it would be self-contradictory, since personal tastes fluctuate. Corn is worth 2 cents over here and 3 cents over there, so where is the true economic value in all this? There is none. The very notion of using subjective taste to determine the property of an object produces these contradictions. Expanding the scale of subjectivity still makes it subjective, since the subjective view of a majority does not stand as more correct than the minority's subjective view.

>>21264013
>you can't stop twisting my words to say the opposite of what they say
You define a term in a certain way, when the question is WHY value "is" a social relation. You have simply defined it as such without any proof. "That's just the definition" in other words. This is why we need to figure out what determines what. In this case, why value = a social relation. If value = a social relation, then a social relation = value. This is of course clearly false. Value can be a 'subset' of a social relation, but we already know that since value is subjective, and subjective taste is a quality of individuals. This is useless, since that does not mean ALL value is a subset of social relations. So the true value of corn cannot be hand waved as a social relation, because not all value exists within social relations. The value you consider equivalent to a social relation is "economic value", but this value is precisely the subjective valuation of individuals, which gets you nowhere. You are in essence saying subjective value (= economic value) is a subset of social relation, which is true, but useless, since we require the actual objective value INDEPENDENT of social relations to dictate how one ought to set prices.

>can't even figure out the true worth of corn
>Thinks he can tell farmers how to price their product.
Checks out

>>21264047
>People literally eat gold
because it's used for food decoration, not because it's tasty
>hence people like it.
they like it for decoration, not for how it tastes. are you capable of anything besides constantly strawmanning like this?
>The point is that external constraints... don't dictate the true worth of commodity
they do. the name for the general external constraint on individual prices is economic value, or economic worth
>The worker can't complain about this.
he can complain about anything he wants
>IOW you define things in a particular manner, creating a tautology
no, it's not a tautology to say that economically valuing products constitutes a social relation, rather than being, for example, a physical property of the products or a property existing in the mind of god. that this is one way and not the other is not just a definition, but a positive description of a fact of the world.
>No value is not a "social relation" because one can value something independent of others opinions
one can prefer a loaf of bread over a bicycle, but that won't change the fact that their actual economic value in society is the opposite. we're talking about the latter, and you keep doing a switcheroo and bringing up the former.
>Because you are using biological determinism as an argument for something that is not biological
I'm using a biological fact to explain another fact that is causally related to this biological fact. unless you want to say that what people find tasty is unrelated to the biological mechanism of nutrition.
>>humans not finding gold tasty
>Humans do eat gold anon.
I wasn't talking about not eating it but about not finding it tasty. the fact that you have to resort to such blatant mischaracterization shows how desperate you are
>Because you can't determine the objective value of something without appealing to personal taste.
no, it's rather because you're asking for economic value that isn't a social relation while economic value is nothing but a social relation.
>If it was it would be self-contradictory, since personal tastes fluctuate
so do prices. value is not the fluctuations but the thing they fluctuate from.
>Corn is worth 2 cents over here and 3 cents over there, so where is the true economic value in all this?
the true value is in the socially-necessary abstract labour time necessary to reproduce corn, which is what its market prices will fluctuate from
>Expanding the scale of subjectivity still makes it subjective
I'm not expanding the scale of subjectivity. you're narrowing the scale of social objectivity to a single subject and pretend this narrowing makes the social objectivity subjective.
>the subjective view of a majority does not stand as more correct than the minority's subjective view
but the objective constraints that make a bicycle more valuable than a loaf of bread assert themselves over subjective opinions on this of individual buyers and sellers

>>21264063
>the question is WHY value "is" a social relation
because it exists only as long as people within a society of private producers engage in common productive activities
>This is useless, since that does not mean ALL value is a subset of social relations.
economic value is, which is what "value" means in this context
>So the true value of corn cannot be hand waved as a social relation
it isn't hand-waved. it is rather explained by reference to objective facts beyond just the arbitrary pure will of a single subject
>we require the actual objective value INDEPENDENT of social relations to dictate how one ought to set prices.
no we don't

>>21264478
>because it's used for food decoration, not because it's tasty
It does have taste. People enjoy it. Accept it.
>the true value is in the socially-necessary abstract labour time necessary
Doesn't exist.
>he can complain about anything he wants
He'd be whining about nothing.
> it's not a tautology to say that economically valuing products constitutes a social relation
It isn't, but it is false.
>unless you want to say that what people find tasty
Taste means what people prefer, not merely chemical reactions on the tongue. It is abstract and personal in nature.
>value is not the fluctuations but the thing they fluctuate from.
That "value" is supposedly determined by subjective opinion, so there is no way of determining if its fluctuating from or to that value. You are using subjective opinion to show an abstract value independent of the opinion. You don't realize how this makes no sense. "Everyone thinks X is worth Y, so that is so."
>I'm not expanding the scale of subjectivity.
Lol literally every time your answer is "general, regularity, as a whole, ...". All you can do is take things to such an abstract view that the details are lost. IOW you can answer the detailed questions such as the true worth of corn, without appealing to either subjective taste or a social trend.
>because it exists only as long as people within a society of private producers engage in common productive activities
No lol. Objective Value can exist independently of production and social interactions. Subjective value, economic value, is personal opinion, so useless.
>economic value is, which is what "value" means in this context
When you speak of an objective value, which economic value cannot be since it is simply a social trend, then you are NOT staying within the context.
> it is rather explained by reference to objective facts beyond just the arbitrary pure will of a single subject
IOW by appealing to social trends, which is no different than appealing to an individual subjective taste. Your "Objective facts" to determine value, they merely influence value. One is not obligated to value corn merely because it is food.
>no we don't
Yes you do else you remain within the domain of subjective opinion.

This entire time your argument has been "Social trends, subjective taste, determine the true value of a commodity." without any proof whatsoever. When confronted with contradictions, your only response is "well at a larger scale" which is moving the subjective goal posts. More subjective opinions does not make an objective one.

>>21264478
You describe economic value as being a social relation. But of course economic value is subjective opinion. So when asked to show the objective value of a commodity, you shift and say "Its determined by even more subjective opinions". When shown the contradiction in values of different people, you shift more and say "At a larger scale of subjective opinion". When shown that scale of a subjective opinion cannot make an objective fact, you say "But there are other external facts." When shown that other facts are not values themselves, and do not dictate what one can value - i.e. people are free to value things despite the objective facts, because facts are not values - you say, well its a social relation. Talking in a circle.

Please show us the objective value of corn without appealing to subjective opinion. "But that's not possible" is what you said last time, not realizing how stupid that sounds, as if personal opinion of group of people is what proves something objective lol.

>There are several contradicting definitions of economic value
>Noo, you need to choose the one Marx ass-pulled to suite my arguments.
Got it

>>21264526
>It does have taste.
it's not tasty. don't shift the goalpost
>He'd be whining about nothing
no, he'd be whining about the level of his wage
>Taste means what people prefer
and what food people find tasty has determinants in biological and chemical facts
>That "value" is supposedly determined by subjective opinion
no, it's what externally pushes the will towards certain prices
>so there is no way of determining if its fluctuating from or to that value
there is. you can for example see whether there are some sudden barriers to growth of supply to match the demand. if there are and the prices rise from the typical trend, you can be pretty sure it's a fluctuation above value.
>"Everyone thinks X is worth Y, so that is so."
who are you quoting?
>Lol literally every time your answer is "general, regularity, as a whole, ...".
I'm talking about social objectivity from the start. I'm not starting from individual subjectivity and "expanding the scale" from there. that's just you projecting what you want me to say onto what I'm actually saying.
>All you can do is take things to such an abstract view that the details are lost.
no, it is the real view from which alone the details can be explained. while you can't explain anything, you can only hand-wave it by attributing it to arbitrary will.
>No lol. Objective Value can exist independently of production and social interactions.
I'm talking about economic value which exists only in the context of social interaction
>When you speak of an objective value, which economic value cannot be
I'm talking about economic value which is objective in the sense that it doesn't depend on individual whim but on facts that lie beyond it
>IOW by appealing to social trends, which is no different than appealing to an individual subjective taste.
no, I'm not appealing to the trends for justification. I only use the trends as an illustration/example. the objective facts are something that cause those trends. they aren't the trends themselves.
>One is not obligated to value corn merely because it is food.
but society assigns economic value to food because food is a thing it produces that it needs for consumption
>Yes you do else you remain within the domain of subjective opinion.
how so?
>This entire time your argument has been "Social trends, subjective taste, determine the true value of a commodity."
no, the entire time I was saying that the value determines the trends. loaves of bread tend to be cheaper than bicycles because they take less social labour to make per unit.
>When confronted with contradictions
the only contradictions here are between what I write and how you turn it around. and I confront them by re-explaining what I'm actually saying

>>21251210
Unfortunately the parasites are alive and well.

>>21264526
>your only response is "well at a larger scale" which is moving the subjective goal posts
the thread is about theory concerning the economy. so the goalpost has been at a large scale, the scale of the economy, right from the start. you're the one constantly trying to move it to derail the conversation from the economy to some abstractions in your head and subjective whims of individuals
>>21264546
>You describe economic value as being a social relation.
and I'm correct, since it exists only as long as people within a society of private producers engage in common productive activities
>But of course economic value is subjective opinion.
no, one can subjectively prefer a loaf of bread over a bicycle, but that won't change the fact that their actual economic value in society is the opposite.
>When shown the contradiction in values of different people
didn't happen. economic value isn't a relation between a single person to a product, but a relation between all members of society attributed to a product. so there's no "contradiction in values of different people"
>When shown that scale of a subjective opinion cannot make an objective fact
irrelevant, because if something extends beyond a subject, then it's no longer subjective
>When shown that other facts are not values themselves
which other facts? some of them obviously aren't values. only values are values
>and do not dictate what one can value - i.e. people are free to value things despite the objective facts
the prices people will ultimately want to set will be dictated by external constraints. that there will be individual deviations is irrelevant, since they'll cancel out
>Please show us the objective value of corn without appealing to subjective opinion
a bushel of corn is everywhere cheaper than a Mercedes
>>21264574
>>Noo, you need to choose the one Marx ass-pulled to suite my arguments.
you need to choose it if you care about being correct about what economic value is

>>21264822
>>21264840
>it's not tasty. don't shift the goalpost
Literally people think its tasty. Accept it my man.
>I'm talking about economic value which exists only in the context of social interaction
Yeah, we know you're talking about people's opinions. No one's debating that lol.
> the objective facts are something that cause those trends. they aren't the trends themselves.
Okay, so use those "objective facts" and give us the objective value of corn.
>the thread is about theory concerning the economy.
Not when you use loaded terms for value.
> so the goalpost has been at a large scale
I.e. define the scale so that your arguments pan out. Got it.
>which other facts?
The fact of people having needs to survive. These facts are not values, only influence values.
>a bushel of corn is everywhere cheaper than a Mercedes
People have similar values. There ya go.
>economic value isn't a relation between a single person to a product, but a relation between all members of society attributed to a product.
So you define it as a social trend, which in turn is subjective. This is where you try to appeal to "objective facts", such as needing food. But needing food is not a value in itself, but something that merely influences our values. So no, you never get to anything objective. You still remain within the domain of subjective opinion.
>you need to choose it if you care about being correct about what economic value is
Yes, choose marx's definition of economic value or don't be correct. That's a good argument.

>>21264840
>and I'm correct, since it exists only as long as people within a society of private producers engage in common productive activities
No you are not. Economic value does not require private producers engaged in common productive activities. Rain has value to people, yet no one creates it or works to make it happen. Oxygen has value as well. Art has value, yet there is no need for common productive activities for it to have it.

You're really doing some mental gymnastics. First you try making objective fact out of subjective opinion (social trends at any scale), which is bogus. Then you try treating objective facts (need for food) as values, even though they are categorically different, also bogus. Now all you can do is bitch and whine: "nooo you're misinterpreting me!". Yeah, all of the definitions you use to define value don't add up. There's nothing to interpret but marx garbage.

Still waiting on the objective value of corn, not a social trend.

>>21253658
Theories of value in general aren't designed around accounting for peripheral cases like money laundering.