Marxism

[Anonymous No.21626924]

What unit is use value denoted in? It is a quantitative economic unit right?

[Anonymous No.21626935]

>>21626924
Use value is a necessary condition for something to have exchange value. All things that have exchange value have use value but not all useful things are exchangeable (consider air for example).

[Anonymous No.21626971]

>>21626935
What unit is that value denoted in?

[Anonymous No.21627092]

>>21626971
It's not a numeric value

[Anonymous No.21627342]

>>21626924
it isn't denoted in any set unit. the unit can be different depending on the use-values in question and the comparison being made:
when comparing two quantities of rice, it can be denoted in kilograms.
when comparing a ton of rice to a ton of wheat, it can be denoted in calories.
when deciding whether to produce something, it can be denoted in terms of a binary useful/non-useful.

[Anonymous No.21627872]

>>21627342
What use-value is inherent to 1kg vs 2kg of rice, what's the use relation between two sacks on the shelf? Surely the use value has to relate to an actual use, not merely be self-refferential, and ought to be collapsed into the second definition which posits an actual use with an associated unit: food energy when eaten.

If the use value of a tonne of rice or wheat is its caloric value in eating (seems plausible as its eating-use in relation to person who eats it), then does the same caloric amount of cavier have the same use value?

If a binary value, then useful for whom and what purpose? Who is the judge and what is the criteria of judgement?

[Anonymous No.21627892]

>>21627092
So it holds a binary value, useful/not-useful, and licenses goods to have an exchange value?

[Anonymous No.21627969]

>>21627872
>What use-value is inherent to 1kg vs 2kg of rice
2kg can feed twice as many people or a single person for twice as long
>what's the use relation between two sacks on the shelf
one is more useful to feed people than the other because it has more food in it
>Surely the use value has to relate to an actual use, not merely be self-refferential, and ought to be collapsed into the second definition which posits an actual use with an associated unit: food energy when eaten
>If the use value of a tonne of rice or wheat is its caloric value in eating (seems plausible as its eating-use in relation to person who eats it), then does the same caloric amount of cavier have the same use value?
no, the caloric amount is not the only thing that makes food. there's also nutrients, taste, etc. which differ between different foods
>If a binary value, then useful for whom and what purpose? Who is the judge and what is the criteria of judgement?
if the use-value is a shovel, then it can be for digging holes for someone who has to dig a whole. if it's some other thing, then it's going to be something else. or if I'm a capitalist producer, it's going to be "useful to people who can pay me for it, no matter for what purpose".

[Anonymous No.21628655]

>>21626924
> What unit is use value denoted in?
Apparent capacity for the satisfaction of a want => use value present. Absence of an apparent capacity for the satisfaction of a want => not a use-value. Please not you can burn people once here and Marx’s theory is historicised. Fake Brooklyn bridges have an apparent satisfaction of a want.

[Anonymous No.21628675]

>>21627892
Yes. Use-value is the bearer of the possibility of exchange value.

[Anonymous No.21628890]

>>21626924
A physical quantity of gold, yarr

[Anonymous No.21629794]

>>21626924
Kołakowski is gravely underrated