Law of Value 2: The Fetishism of Commodities

[hersheyguy]

thanks for explaining what fetishism was. i thought it was just an obsession with commodities. maybe i didnt make the connection in capital haha

[jsymons1985]

This all seems rather hair-brained and weird... Price is where supply meets demand... it reflects what people are willing to pay, and yes people do think of objects as imbued with value, but i think they always have. When I am cold, a sweater is valuable, when I am hot an air conditioner is etc. Whether I am a capitalist or living in agrarian society I will think this. Precisely what's wrong with this valuation of goods. I don't think this necessarily bleeds into social relationships.

[SpectacleofDebord]

@jsymons1985 You're over exagerating the "use-value" of the commodity. Wal-Mart will let a loaf of bread sit on the shelf and turn to dust before they let you have it w/o $. Commodities are for those that can afford them, not for those who need or can use them. They're created only to make their owners wealthy, period. If someone else happens to benefit along the way, thats an unintended consequence.

[ckerton1]

@jsymons1985 You should watch the other videos in the series. It illustrates the theory better.

[nonconservative]

VERY INTELLIGENT WORK! THANK YOU!

[68generation]

Thanks for the explanation, I finally got that clear.

[68generation]

Let's take the example of the sweater: isn't also its value determined by the material with which it is made? For ex. wool is warmer than polyester and it is usually more expensive. Even toys made of wood are usually more expensive than the ones made of plastic. So doesn't the raw material also determine the value and therefore the price?

[brendanmcooney]

@68generation. The total price is the value of the raw material and and machines (determined by a previous labor process) plus the value added by labor in production (part of which makes up the value of the wage and part of which goes toward the capitalist's profit).

[jjbreville]

Great Video. But the section on the ark of the Old Testament is inaccurate. The Israelites did not think the ark gave them the victory, much less failure. They were very clear it was their God. As a matter of fact, they were not allowed to worship any statues or idols precisely to prevent them from becoming attached to their neighboring nations' fetishes. The ark was to remind them of the pact they made with their God. Even so, the Israelites were very naughty throughout. Love the video though!

[tuberesponder]

If there is a $ or any other "money symbol" you are talking about "Price."

The values of the sweater are, warmth, comfort, fit, style, sentiment, texture, and a multitude of innumerable other "QUALITIES".

MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL EXCHANGE is the source of (righteous) profit.

Also, we don't have money, we have "Legal Tender" (a money SUBSTITUTE), which is rather tightly controlled.

[Sniper2008009]

@tuberesponder

"Also, we don't have money, we have "Legal Tender" (a money SUBSTITUTE)"

Semantics. Legal tender still functions as capital and a form of exchange for goods.

"The values of the sweater are, warmth, comfort, fit, style, sentiment, texture, and a multitude of innumerable other 'QUALITIES'."

That's the use-value of a commodity, and when you're talking about "price" or monetary exchange, that is the exchange value of a commodity. What Brendan is talking about here is labor value

[Sniper2008009]

Cont'd:

..which ultimately is what gives these very attributes themselves. Without the product of human labor, the use-value and exchange value of the sweater ceases to exist as these are the products of human hands. Please do not confuse the three.

Also, Marx's labor value theory centers around labor exploitation of capitalists and has nothing to do with what you are saying. I think when we talk about Marxism in mind, we must stick with what the theory is all about and not get side-tracked.

[tuberesponder]

there is a difference between "VALUE" and "PRICE". In fact, if there were not such a difference, then there would be little or no market exchange. Generally, we exchange one thing, for something else we wanted more, sp that both sides ( or even ALL sides and steps) of the transactions are improved. MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL EXCHANGE.

[brendanmcooney]

@tuberesponder. Of course there's a difference between value and price. That is the topic of my, to be made, Value and Price video. You can see an initial draft of the script titled "Prices of Production" (which has been entirely rewritten now) on my blog . You can also get a gist of the argument on my video "Das MudPie".

As for "mutually beneficial exchange": This is an unquantifiable psychological concept, outside of the topic of value theory, which deals with real quantities of labor.

[tuberesponder]

@brendanmcooney MBE is a quality, and it is that quality which motivates most economic transactions (or at least, excepted beneficial exchange). It's also subjective and contextual (as are all "values"). MBE is not outside the theory of value, it is the center of it.

*Value is in the eye of the evaluator

**Labor is a factor (and not uniform factor) of production, not a transactional value. Without labor there is no production, but it's not labor is not the source of value.

[brendanmcooney]

@tuberesponder. It's outside the topic of marx's value theory which is about the way social labor is apportioned by commodity exchange. Marx's notion of value is a different notion that in subjective value theory. We must avoid conflating the 2 definitions or be guilty of equivocation. When value is defined as socially necessary labor time then it by definition is the source of value. When value is defined as unmeasurable psychological substance then it is by definition the source of value.

[tuberesponder]

@brendanmcooney Marx's value is a limited value. A value amongst many, still derived from the source, which is subjective evaluation. If anything, Marx provides a set of standards by which to evaluate. a subset of many..

what Marxism is doing is saying "red is a color ... therefor red is the source of color."

Labor is OF value and valuable, but not a source of value.

[brendanmcooney]

@tuberesponder. That is not at all what Marx is saying. Labor time cannot be derived from subjective valuation. That's impossible. Labor time is determined by the amount of time required to do a task: which is determined by the level of labor productivity at a given time. But the only way to coordinate these labors is through the exchange of commodities. This is only possible because commodities represent labor time. How else is the division of labor coordinated?

[68generation]

Very clear explanation on some of the key concepts of das Kapital.

[hume12345]

commodity * energy to produce and transport + manpower = value of commodity

[brendanmcooney]

@hume12345. What units are energy and manpower measured in this equation of yours?

[hume12345]

@brendanmcooney how can you quantify manpower as a unit if it's isn't a product of energy?

[brendanmcooney]

@hume12345 in labor time.

[hume12345]

@brendanmcooney if you don't take into account the energy required to produce something then how can you begin to attribute value to said item? none of what is mentioned in this video takes into account the political nature of value (e.g. what one country demands in terms of cost for a particular item).

there is no intrinsic value to anything unless it is in relation to us (i.e. food, clothing etc)

[brendanmcooney]

@hume12345. You've made 3 completely different arguments here. Nobody counts the calories in labor before assigning value to its product. But we do measure the duration of labor time all the time. In fact we have an obsession w/ quantifying labor time.

It is value that determines what a person or country can "demand in terms of cost" not the other way around.

Yes, value is a social relation which is marx's entire point- the point I make here as well.

[antiracistskin69]

Once again well done Brendan.

[organdva]

I really appreciate your effort - it means a lot for people who still lazy to read much, like me :)

[Xylian113]

Great video as usual, good job!

[mistertakeda]

Good work! This clarifies a lot of confusion over Marx.

[LovexandxRage]

You've transcended what I already thought were great, clear videos. I wish I had these the first time I approached Capital!

[oldmanhegel]

Great day to post this!

[bebedagely]

thank you for the video! I'm looking forward for the rest of the series