I just have a question. You say that labor must be "useful" labor, or labor that produces products that society finds desirable or useful. Wouldn't this imply that there must be a free market (not necessarily capitalism) in order for people to judge that usefulness and value for themselves? A central body can't possibly determine or manufacture all of the things that individuals want, because they are not focused on the consumer, but on production itself.
@DesecrateConformity What I mean, is, Marx says that the labor must create socially useful products through the social labor, but doesn't this simply imply that there is another level of value before labor actually makes the product possible?
@DesecrateConformity I think the question is on whether the usefulness of the commodity has any bearing on the degree/quantity of value. It is one thing to say that usefulness is a prerequisite of social labor. It is another to say that there is such a thing as quantities of usefulness. There are certainly quantities of labor. There is certainly such a thing as not enough labor or too much labor for social use. But this is not quite the same as some gradation of utility.
@crazypants88. the usefullness of the labor only describes one of the qualities of it (others being things like socially necessary labor time, the particular society that makes this organization of labor possible, etc.) But the quantity of exchange value cannot be explained by this usefulness because use can't be quantified. It is a quality/quantity distinction.
@Rekopaa Youtube needs more boring, more pondering, more learning, less racket. Entertainment is no longer relevant. Entertainment is reactionary. Boring is liberatory.
From the first few pages of Capital Vol1: "Finally, nothing can be a value without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value."
If I leave a condescending comment about a subject I know nothing about and devote my labour into making sure my grammar is adequate, will people value this comment just because of how much labour I devoted to it? No, they'll just think I'm a dick and vote my comment down.
Noone assigns values. Values are discovered through market transactions. Your entire argument fails when you simply assume because you do not value mud pies, noone does.
@ekeyra You are reifying "market transactions" as some sort of autonomous power removed from the social realm. However, that abstract notion of "market transactions" is nothing more than social relationships between real-life capitalists who decide prices. It's inaccurate to say "no one assigns values," ultimately a group or an individual does. Unfortunately you ignore this due, in part, to commodity fetishism - as the process is hidden away and obscured in modern capitalism.
I read this from a review of Post Keynsian Steve Keen's book. How can we counter this type of analysis?
Stevfe Keen asserts: "machines can add more product-value over their operational lifetime than the total value of depreciation charged during those asset lives. Depreciation, he implies, was really the weak point in Marx's social accounting system all along, and Keen's case will hold irrespective of whatever definition of economic, real, or tax-assessed depreciation is used."
(cont) No, money has gets it's value from our collective intentionality *that* it is to be valued. The same is true for labor. Labor qua labor has no value. It is only our collective intent that it should be valued that gives it it's value. It is epistemically subjective but ontologically objective.
I think that labor should have more value than it does in the US but I don't think this is because my labor has intrinsic value. It is because *I* have intrinsic worth.
Here is where you go wrong: "The problem with this argument is that Marx was very clear that labor has to be useful labor to create value. Yet he didn't think it was this usefulness that creates value."
Well he and you are just flat out wrong about that. It is precisely our collective intentionality *that* X product has value that creates value. Labor and it's products are like money. That this paper with ink stains has the value it does is not because of any intrinsic value it has.
@1noen1. You are not addressing anything in this video. You are merely asserting a different notion of value as if that is an argument. Watch the video and respond to something in it or make your own video to explain your theory of value.
@brendanmcooney -- Well I think that my theory of value, which isn't mine but anyway, better describes the facts and is a better fit for how society is constructed. Labor cannot create value. Value is *constituted* by valuing. It is only by means of my conscious decision that X has value that it thereby acquires value. A 20$ bill only has the value it has by means of the collective intentionality *that* it should have value. The same goes for labor.
@1noen1. There is no collective decision making process in a market society. Individuals act according to objective market signals that they can't control. These specific content of these market signals may vary with the anarchic collective movement of supply and demand, but the form of these signals doesn't. Furthermore, by dwelling in subjectivity you ignore all of the objective structures of production and demand that condition these "subjective" "valuations".
@brendanmcooney -- "make your own video" I'm formerly homeless and very poor. My connection is quite slow and I do not have the financial means to go around buying video cameras and I can't afford the high speed connection it would take to make it worth my while anyway.
@marxian00 -- Well I don't know what he said but if Brenden said anything other than the truth that money is socially constructed he is wrong. No humans = no money. The bits of paper with ink stains I have only count as money because there is a collective intentionality *that* they are valid ways of paying debts and buying things.
Money has no intrinsic value of it's own. Whether it is blips in a bank's computer or conch shells makes no difference.
@1noen1. You still are making ass of yourself by not understanding what you are critiquing. There is no claim by Marx of an a-historical or a-social value. Value, for Marx, is a historically specific expression of a social relation between people- the relation of private labors that can only discover their social nature through a comparison of exchange values. You don't understand what is meant by "intrinsic".
@brendanmcooney -- Hey, we're just talking and for YouTube this is a very polite convo. Yes, I'm not an expert on Marx, I expect you to be and to defend that position. Me, I'm just trying to think things through and give reasonable arguments against.
"No Marxist a-social values". Ok, If that is true then labor cannot create value and labor and work are not the same things. Values are created by people valuing. If I desire the product of your labor then I will reward you, otherwise not.
@brendanmcooney -- (cont) I know what intrinsic means. Work is the expenditure of energy and has no intrinsic worth. Labor is a socially constructed concept and only posses value if we choose to give it value. Labor cannot have intrinsic qualities any more than money does because they are arbitrary human constructs and not features of the external world.
That's the take away point here. There is an external world and a social world. Values only exist in the human social context. No where else.
@1noen1. What makes you look the fool is that you are arguing the same point Marx argued in his critique of classical political economy: that value is not trans-historical but a socially constructed means of ordering a specific type of production. Yet this doesn't mean that value is subjective or created thru "intention". How can he hold that value is socially constructed yet intrinsic? Perhaps that is for you to figure out by watching these videos with an open mind instead of w/ prior judging
@brendanmcooney -- That's fine but if the value of labor is socially constructed then that value is something that is imposed on the labor and not intrinsic to it. The value of a 20$ bill is imposed by the market. Confederate money has no value because no one values it. Labor spent producing mud pies has no value if no one values the product. And you are still getting intentionality wrong.
I doubt that I am the fool here. I came here knowing little of economics and argued from general principle
@1noen1. Ah but you still don't understand what Marx means by intrinsic. You are just imposing a general, lay use of the term. Marx means that value is relational as implied by commodity exchange. The value of an apple can be expressed in an infinite amount of relations to other commodities. Since the particular commodity it's compared to doesn't matter this implies it has its own value. This value is still an expression of a social relation. This is explained in vid #4:Value.
@brendanmcooney (cont) And from those general philosophical principles I reasoned my way to a subjective theory of value. Which, now that I bother to look it up on wikipedia forms the basis of marginalist theories which is mainstream econ 101. Foolish me.
I think that Libertarians and Marxists are wrong because they both begin with false philosophical assumptions. Both cling to their false beliefs from emotional needs. Let them go Brendan. Only then can you be truly free. ;)
@1noen1 the law of value is subject to many factors. The Capitalist first has to produce the goods. These goods are then presented to the market and a price
charged at some competitive value with similiar goods in the market, This of course first established that wholsale materials to make the goods,and labour payed for makes it possible for a profit in the market, by such production. These
values change with scarcity of ,materials available or more available. State tax
2 o f 2 Times of the year for certain goods values etc. many such variables etc. YOU MISTAKE MONEY 20$ or CONF money as value. They are not. they are MEANS OF EXCHANGE, acceptable for goods based on the value of the goods being scarce or not. That confed money was seen as a poor currency exchange, This was only if your were less or more loyal to the south. IF YOU HAD access to $ or confed or accept them or not not to buy goods at a VALUE set for the goods.
Your videos on the law of value are very good. I think you have read I. Rubin and Roman Rosdolsky. My understanding of Marx's theory is pretty close to yours, but I couldn't present my views on such a pedagogical rigour.
An excellent video, most informative I've seen in a long time. I personally think Thorstein Veblen did the best job of elaborating on commodity fetishism - describing how people buy commodities in the name of social standing and distinction which is central to the kind of consumer capitalism we see today, particularly in North America. Capitalism triggers an arms race among individuals, communities and nations and we all know how painful the results often are.
@samsonlovesyou I WOULD like to add to this comment. Your work on explaining value is brilliant. As a teacher your methods and voice work well with the material you use. PLEASE keep up this important service to us our here. i am sure many people other than us have expressed such warm thanks to you on these matters.
My regards to you and hope you are well and doing ok
How could a laborer determine if their labor was useful or useless, without some value system first? (other than by happenstance and accident, trial and error).
VALUES are 'a priori' to the deployement of labor (or capital, land, materials, and prices).
The very apologetic term 'useful labor' negates Marx's attempt at labor source of value, and exalts subjective value theory. Since the subjective term "useful" is more useful for evaluation than labor factors.
"useful labor". Useful is an EVALUATION. labor can NOT BE THE SOURCE OF VALUE because usefullness is A value. If there is something in the "useful labor" slogan that is an term of value it is USEFUL and _NOT_ labor!
Useful is a value quality, labor is the thing being evaluated. how can the thing being evaluated be the source of the value?
We VALUE the USEFUL, and don't value the USELESS.
Cut out "labor" from the "useful labor" idea, and you will have a better sense of value, USEFUL.
@tuberesponder. You are committing a logical fallacy known as equivocation when you conflate two definitions of value in your argument. Marx is not talking about subjective personal valuations when he says "value". you argument is merely "value is by definition subjective therefore labor can't be the source of value". This is not a logical argument b/c Marx is talking about something different: objectively measurable quantities of labor.
@brendanmcooney..We can argue about what phenomena these 2 definitions best explain, like which best explains price, or the social relations between producers, etc. But we can't just make an argument by substituting one definition for another.
@brendanmcooney.We can argue about what phenomena these 2 definitions best explain, like which best explains price, or the social relations between producers, etc. But we can't just make an argument by substituting one definition for another.
You're human refuse. Value is ONLY IN THE MIND. There is no superhuman agency denoting value to water. There is no superhuman agency denoting less value to video games even though they make great profits despite their absolute redundancy in terms of human needs for survival. What is the difference between consumption and production? One transfers energy & matter in a way judged to be of net loss for society, the latter in a way deemed to be productive therefore remuneration worthy.
@brendanmcooney acutally, it's you guys that equivocate by segregating "labor value" from value, and then treating the subset as the whole. What's more, you're also equivocating value and price in your videos.
What I do is unify, there is one source of value, that takes many forms and innumerable arrangements. There is no objective value. Labor is a factor, not a value, and if YOU value labor and labor "theory" that's your subjective evaluation.
@tuberesponder. When Marx deals with subjective value he calls it use-value. When he deals with price he calls it exchange value. When he deals with socially necessary labor time he calls it value. These are very clear terms. It is not equivocation.
But you try to argue against Marx by substituting a different definition of value and then acting like that is an argument. It's not an argument at all.
@brendanmcooney. Actually, to be more precise... When Marx says "use-value" is referring to the physical nature of the commodity and the use it provides people. Subjective preferences for this or that commodity are a response to use-values. But Marx doesn't think these subjective attitudes toward use-value take the form of objective economic laws that press upon production. Therefore subjective preferences are not useful for understand the social relations of capitalism.
If I applied Marxism to you and your family I would take the goods used to make meals and distribute them as I see fit based not on the desires of consumers of food but on my sole agency. This is why applied Marxism i.e. Socialism destroys pricing for capital goods because they are all owned by one expropriator, the State. Thus the agency is blind and receives no profit signals from consumers in terms of whether machinery should be combined in this or that method, making this or that commodity.
Marxism doesn't work that way. It never speaks of how commodities will be exchanged nor even speaks on how it is to be done. Marxism is simply a critique of capitalism and shows the historical timeline on how slavery/exploitation of labor evolved into what we see as capitalism. Like I said on other threads, you don't know what you're talking about. You anarcho-capitalists really amuse me with your ignorant and strawman trash which you sorry bunch call an argument.
The videos you flash up at (0:40), (0:44)& imply by doing so that they are propagating this theoretical misunderstanding, do not mention Marxian value theory. And do not make the claim you accuse of being false. The Mises Explodes Marxism video is about the Iron Law of Wages. The Marx nobody knows lecture is about the life of Marx himself and the sociology of Marxism. Whether they are right or not they are not guilty of your mud pie fallacy.
@Malthus0. This is true, but there are plenty of mudpie and other ridiculous arguments made on Misesorg which is what I am getting at. The videos I show in this section go along with text: "The basic style of the mudpie argument is similar to many advanced by those who know nothing about Marxs theory of value: one constructs a ridiculous strawman argument..." etc. I was not trying to imply that these particular videos are mudpie arguments.
this is very perspicuous and informative, thanks for making this, (by the way, last month I spent some time in Berlin (Freie Universitat) and saw little street art stickers of Marx with a baseball cap on his head, basically urging the modern reappraisal of his theories) ...Iam more and more motivated to buy a copy of Capital
You might want to try some intro books first(if you have not already)- Sowell or Singer maybe. Gives a wider foundation of understanding and potential interpretation then just diving straight into what is fairly narrow and difficult book.
So much for my dream of starting a mud pie company...
Excellent vids. Thank you.
termsofusepolice 1 month ago in playlist More videos from brendanmcooney
I just have a question. You say that labor must be "useful" labor, or labor that produces products that society finds desirable or useful. Wouldn't this imply that there must be a free market (not necessarily capitalism) in order for people to judge that usefulness and value for themselves? A central body can't possibly determine or manufacture all of the things that individuals want, because they are not focused on the consumer, but on production itself.
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
@DesecrateConformity What I mean, is, Marx says that the labor must create socially useful products through the social labor, but doesn't this simply imply that there is another level of value before labor actually makes the product possible?
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
@DesecrateConformity I think the question is on whether the usefulness of the commodity has any bearing on the degree/quantity of value. It is one thing to say that usefulness is a prerequisite of social labor. It is another to say that there is such a thing as quantities of usefulness. There are certainly quantities of labor. There is certainly such a thing as not enough labor or too much labor for social use. But this is not quite the same as some gradation of utility.
brendanmcooney 1 month ago
Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I think I understand now.
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
This video is self refuting IMO.
@ 1:34 if it's "useful" labor that's valued then it's no longer the labor the determines the value, it's people's subjective values.
crazypants88 2 months ago
@crazypants88. the usefullness of the labor only describes one of the qualities of it (others being things like socially necessary labor time, the particular society that makes this organization of labor possible, etc.) But the quantity of exchange value cannot be explained by this usefulness because use can't be quantified. It is a quality/quantity distinction.
brendanmcooney 1 month ago
this is boring
Rekopaa 2 months ago
@Rekopaa Youtube needs more boring, more pondering, more learning, less racket. Entertainment is no longer relevant. Entertainment is reactionary. Boring is liberatory.
brendanmcooney 2 months ago 7
Excellent series !
From the first few pages of Capital Vol1: "Finally, nothing can be a value without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value."
stonemanrichard 4 months ago
The intro had me lolling. Thanks for these videos!
anokissed 4 months ago
Haha, pathetic! Try this on for size!
If I leave a condescending comment about a subject I know nothing about and devote my labour into making sure my grammar is adequate, will people value this comment just because of how much labour I devoted to it? No, they'll just think I'm a dick and vote my comment down.
Take that, Karl Marx!
SecularNumanist 8 months ago
Noone assigns values. Values are discovered through market transactions. Your entire argument fails when you simply assume because you do not value mud pies, noone does.
ekeyra 8 months ago
@ekeyra Are you talking about Brian Noone?
kenmarkwalsh 3 months ago
@ekeyra You are reifying "market transactions" as some sort of autonomous power removed from the social realm. However, that abstract notion of "market transactions" is nothing more than social relationships between real-life capitalists who decide prices. It's inaccurate to say "no one assigns values," ultimately a group or an individual does. Unfortunately you ignore this due, in part, to commodity fetishism - as the process is hidden away and obscured in modern capitalism.
aerdil 2 months ago
I read this from a review of Post Keynsian Steve Keen's book. How can we counter this type of analysis?
Stevfe Keen asserts: "machines can add more product-value over their operational lifetime than the total value of depreciation charged during those asset lives. Depreciation, he implies, was really the weak point in Marx's social accounting system all along, and Keen's case will hold irrespective of whatever definition of economic, real, or tax-assessed depreciation is used."
busybuzzbuzz 1 year ago
(cont) No, money has gets it's value from our collective intentionality *that* it is to be valued. The same is true for labor. Labor qua labor has no value. It is only our collective intent that it should be valued that gives it it's value. It is epistemically subjective but ontologically objective.
I think that labor should have more value than it does in the US but I don't think this is because my labor has intrinsic value. It is because *I* have intrinsic worth.
1noen1 1 year ago
Here is where you go wrong: "The problem with this argument is that Marx was very clear that labor has to be useful labor to create value. Yet he didn't think it was this usefulness that creates value."
Well he and you are just flat out wrong about that. It is precisely our collective intentionality *that* X product has value that creates value. Labor and it's products are like money. That this paper with ink stains has the value it does is not because of any intrinsic value it has.
1noen1 1 year ago
@1noen1. You are not addressing anything in this video. You are merely asserting a different notion of value as if that is an argument. Watch the video and respond to something in it or make your own video to explain your theory of value.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney -- Well I think that my theory of value, which isn't mine but anyway, better describes the facts and is a better fit for how society is constructed. Labor cannot create value. Value is *constituted* by valuing. It is only by means of my conscious decision that X has value that it thereby acquires value. A 20$ bill only has the value it has by means of the collective intentionality *that* it should have value. The same goes for labor.
1noen1 1 year ago
@1noen1. There is no collective decision making process in a market society. Individuals act according to objective market signals that they can't control. These specific content of these market signals may vary with the anarchic collective movement of supply and demand, but the form of these signals doesn't. Furthermore, by dwelling in subjectivity you ignore all of the objective structures of production and demand that condition these "subjective" "valuations".
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney -- "make your own video" I'm formerly homeless and very poor. My connection is quite slow and I do not have the financial means to go around buying video cameras and I can't afford the high speed connection it would take to make it worth my while anyway.
1noen1 1 year ago
@1noen1
Maybe you should have a look at some of Brendan's videos on what is money.
marxian00 1 year ago
@marxian00 -- Well I don't know what he said but if Brenden said anything other than the truth that money is socially constructed he is wrong. No humans = no money. The bits of paper with ink stains I have only count as money because there is a collective intentionality *that* they are valid ways of paying debts and buying things.
Money has no intrinsic value of it's own. Whether it is blips in a bank's computer or conch shells makes no difference.
1noen1 1 year ago
@1noen1. You still are making ass of yourself by not understanding what you are critiquing. There is no claim by Marx of an a-historical or a-social value. Value, for Marx, is a historically specific expression of a social relation between people- the relation of private labors that can only discover their social nature through a comparison of exchange values. You don't understand what is meant by "intrinsic".
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney -- Hey, we're just talking and for YouTube this is a very polite convo. Yes, I'm not an expert on Marx, I expect you to be and to defend that position. Me, I'm just trying to think things through and give reasonable arguments against.
"No Marxist a-social values". Ok, If that is true then labor cannot create value and labor and work are not the same things. Values are created by people valuing. If I desire the product of your labor then I will reward you, otherwise not.
1noen1 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney -- (cont) I know what intrinsic means. Work is the expenditure of energy and has no intrinsic worth. Labor is a socially constructed concept and only posses value if we choose to give it value. Labor cannot have intrinsic qualities any more than money does because they are arbitrary human constructs and not features of the external world.
That's the take away point here. There is an external world and a social world. Values only exist in the human social context. No where else.
1noen1 1 year ago
@1noen1. What makes you look the fool is that you are arguing the same point Marx argued in his critique of classical political economy: that value is not trans-historical but a socially constructed means of ordering a specific type of production. Yet this doesn't mean that value is subjective or created thru "intention". How can he hold that value is socially constructed yet intrinsic? Perhaps that is for you to figure out by watching these videos with an open mind instead of w/ prior judging
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney -- That's fine but if the value of labor is socially constructed then that value is something that is imposed on the labor and not intrinsic to it. The value of a 20$ bill is imposed by the market. Confederate money has no value because no one values it. Labor spent producing mud pies has no value if no one values the product. And you are still getting intentionality wrong.
I doubt that I am the fool here. I came here knowing little of economics and argued from general principle
1noen1 1 year ago
@1noen1. Ah but you still don't understand what Marx means by intrinsic. You are just imposing a general, lay use of the term. Marx means that value is relational as implied by commodity exchange. The value of an apple can be expressed in an infinite amount of relations to other commodities. Since the particular commodity it's compared to doesn't matter this implies it has its own value. This value is still an expression of a social relation. This is explained in vid #4:Value.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago 2
@brendanmcooney (cont) And from those general philosophical principles I reasoned my way to a subjective theory of value. Which, now that I bother to look it up on wikipedia forms the basis of marginalist theories which is mainstream econ 101. Foolish me.
I think that Libertarians and Marxists are wrong because they both begin with false philosophical assumptions. Both cling to their false beliefs from emotional needs. Let them go Brendan. Only then can you be truly free. ;)
1noen1 1 year ago
@1noen1. What is this false assumption that Max's theory of value is based on?
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@1noen1 the law of value is subject to many factors. The Capitalist first has to produce the goods. These goods are then presented to the market and a price
charged at some competitive value with similiar goods in the market, This of course first established that wholsale materials to make the goods,and labour payed for makes it possible for a profit in the market, by such production. These
values change with scarcity of ,materials available or more available. State tax
or not. 1 OF 2
nbm34 1 year ago
2 o f 2 Times of the year for certain goods values etc. many such variables etc. YOU MISTAKE MONEY 20$ or CONF money as value. They are not. they are MEANS OF EXCHANGE, acceptable for goods based on the value of the goods being scarce or not. That confed money was seen as a poor currency exchange, This was only if your were less or more loyal to the south. IF YOU HAD access to $ or confed or accept them or not not to buy goods at a VALUE set for the goods.
ie 20$ or 60 CSA $ for 8lb bread
nbm34 1 year ago
@nbm34 -- This is incoherent. I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say.
1noen1 1 year ago
@1noen1 I have sent you a personal message on this as I needed more space than these limited comment sections, to try and present my opinions so they
can be more clearly understood hopefully.
nbm34 1 year ago
Your videos on the law of value are very good. I think you have read I. Rubin and Roman Rosdolsky. My understanding of Marx's theory is pretty close to yours, but I couldn't present my views on such a pedagogical rigour.
Topikatintalo 1 year ago
@Topikatintalo. Yes on the Runin. In fact this series is intended to be a modern-day tribute to Rubin. But I've yet to read Rosdolsky.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
Fantastic work. Though if I had a criticism, it would be the suggestive imagery.
I'm inspired to make some movies... great work.
lacky133 1 year ago
An excellent video, most informative I've seen in a long time. I personally think Thorstein Veblen did the best job of elaborating on commodity fetishism - describing how people buy commodities in the name of social standing and distinction which is central to the kind of consumer capitalism we see today, particularly in North America. Capitalism triggers an arms race among individuals, communities and nations and we all know how painful the results often are.
blackiron60 1 year ago 3
Can't praise you enough for this whole series thus far, Brendan. Just dropping you a comment to let you know how appreciated your work is.
samsonlovesyou 1 year ago 26
@samsonlovesyou I WOULD like to add to this comment. Your work on explaining value is brilliant. As a teacher your methods and voice work well with the material you use. PLEASE keep up this important service to us our here. i am sure many people other than us have expressed such warm thanks to you on these matters.
My regards to you and hope you are well and doing ok
nbm34 1 year ago
How could a laborer determine if their labor was useful or useless, without some value system first? (other than by happenstance and accident, trial and error).
VALUES are 'a priori' to the deployement of labor (or capital, land, materials, and prices).
The very apologetic term 'useful labor' negates Marx's attempt at labor source of value, and exalts subjective value theory. Since the subjective term "useful" is more useful for evaluation than labor factors.
tuberesponder 1 year ago
"useful labor". Useful is an EVALUATION. labor can NOT BE THE SOURCE OF VALUE because usefullness is A value. If there is something in the "useful labor" slogan that is an term of value it is USEFUL and _NOT_ labor!
Useful is a value quality, labor is the thing being evaluated. how can the thing being evaluated be the source of the value?
We VALUE the USEFUL, and don't value the USELESS.
Cut out "labor" from the "useful labor" idea, and you will have a better sense of value, USEFUL.
tuberesponder 1 year ago
@tuberesponder. You are committing a logical fallacy known as equivocation when you conflate two definitions of value in your argument. Marx is not talking about subjective personal valuations when he says "value". you argument is merely "value is by definition subjective therefore labor can't be the source of value". This is not a logical argument b/c Marx is talking about something different: objectively measurable quantities of labor.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney..We can argue about what phenomena these 2 definitions best explain, like which best explains price, or the social relations between producers, etc. But we can't just make an argument by substituting one definition for another.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney.We can argue about what phenomena these 2 definitions best explain, like which best explains price, or the social relations between producers, etc. But we can't just make an argument by substituting one definition for another.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@thesubhuman
You're human refuse. Value is ONLY IN THE MIND. There is no superhuman agency denoting value to water. There is no superhuman agency denoting less value to video games even though they make great profits despite their absolute redundancy in terms of human needs for survival. What is the difference between consumption and production? One transfers energy & matter in a way judged to be of net loss for society, the latter in a way deemed to be productive therefore remuneration worthy.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@Nintendomanwill
Value theory says nothing about superhuman agencies or value hinging on "human needs for survival".
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney acutally, it's you guys that equivocate by segregating "labor value" from value, and then treating the subset as the whole. What's more, you're also equivocating value and price in your videos.
What I do is unify, there is one source of value, that takes many forms and innumerable arrangements. There is no objective value. Labor is a factor, not a value, and if YOU value labor and labor "theory" that's your subjective evaluation.
tuberesponder 1 year ago
@tuberesponder. When Marx deals with subjective value he calls it use-value. When he deals with price he calls it exchange value. When he deals with socially necessary labor time he calls it value. These are very clear terms. It is not equivocation.
But you try to argue against Marx by substituting a different definition of value and then acting like that is an argument. It's not an argument at all.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney. Actually, to be more precise... When Marx says "use-value" is referring to the physical nature of the commodity and the use it provides people. Subjective preferences for this or that commodity are a response to use-values. But Marx doesn't think these subjective attitudes toward use-value take the form of objective economic laws that press upon production. Therefore subjective preferences are not useful for understand the social relations of capitalism.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
If I applied Marxism to you and your family I would take the goods used to make meals and distribute them as I see fit based not on the desires of consumers of food but on my sole agency. This is why applied Marxism i.e. Socialism destroys pricing for capital goods because they are all owned by one expropriator, the State. Thus the agency is blind and receives no profit signals from consumers in terms of whether machinery should be combined in this or that method, making this or that commodity.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@Nintendomanwill
Marxism is a critique of capitalism and a theory of history. Perhaps you are referring to Stalinism (in a crude way)?
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@Nintendomanwill
Marxism doesn't work that way. It never speaks of how commodities will be exchanged nor even speaks on how it is to be done. Marxism is simply a critique of capitalism and shows the historical timeline on how slavery/exploitation of labor evolved into what we see as capitalism. Like I said on other threads, you don't know what you're talking about. You anarcho-capitalists really amuse me with your ignorant and strawman trash which you sorry bunch call an argument.
Sniper2008009 1 year ago
The videos you flash up at (0:40), (0:44)& imply by doing so that they are propagating this theoretical misunderstanding, do not mention Marxian value theory. And do not make the claim you accuse of being false. The Mises Explodes Marxism video is about the Iron Law of Wages. The Marx nobody knows lecture is about the life of Marx himself and the sociology of Marxism. Whether they are right or not they are not guilty of your mud pie fallacy.
Malthus0 1 year ago
@Malthus0
@Malthus0. This is true, but there are plenty of mudpie and other ridiculous arguments made on Misesorg which is what I am getting at. The videos I show in this section go along with text: "The basic style of the mudpie argument is similar to many advanced by those who know nothing about Marxs theory of value: one constructs a ridiculous strawman argument..." etc. I was not trying to imply that these particular videos are mudpie arguments.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
My brain hurts, but I am trying!
adeadlysniper 1 year ago
Thanks man. I would love to see any wannabe capitalists response.
organdva 1 year ago
this is very perspicuous and informative, thanks for making this, (by the way, last month I spent some time in Berlin (Freie Universitat) and saw little street art stickers of Marx with a baseball cap on his head, basically urging the modern reappraisal of his theories) ...Iam more and more motivated to buy a copy of Capital
almafarag 1 year ago 2
@almafarag. Do it. And check out David Harvey's lectures on Capital when you read it.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney Perhaps if you spice up your mudpie with more pepper etc. they might be sold as commodities ;-).
MrEverpresent 1 year ago
@almafarag
You might want to try some intro books first(if you have not already)- Sowell or Singer maybe. Gives a wider foundation of understanding and potential interpretation then just diving straight into what is fairly narrow and difficult book.
Malthus0 1 year ago
@Malthus0 Thanks for the tip
almafarag 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney: Mud-pie theory: the biggest strawman argument in the universe.
okayillgonow 1 year ago 19