About the air example, let's say someone was scuba diving and was running out of air, Wouldn't the value air be very valuable to him/her subjectively? The value of air to him/her wouldn't matter whether someone's labor made it (another tank of air) or no one's labor made it (swimming to the surface and getting it for free). No matter where it comes from, it is valuable because he/she needs it.
About the air example, let's say someone was scuba diving and was running out of air, Wouldnt the value of another tank of air be very valuable to them subjectively?
@tph2010 assuming they couldn't just surface and breath air, yes. One rich person might pay a million dollars in this scenario. The Marxist theory of value is not about unlikely happenings, but the larger picture. Note that this scenario also assumes no competition. If there were many underwater vendors ready to sell a tank of water to the unfortunate scuba diver, the price would likely reflect the price of a tank of air, plus a substantial amount for the underwater store.
Well a capitalist would respond to your air example by saying that the supply of air is much greater than the demand hence that explains why air is free.
@ImAznnn Good point, but what happens when supply and demand reach an equilibrium? Why do cars cost more than socks? Is it because I buy more cars than socks, thus driving up demand? Again the capitalist may respond that there is a greater supply of socks, thus the lower price. Supply and demand can explain everything, but only using the most surface level understanding. A good solid understanding would require us to then ask "Why are there so many more socks?"
@MarxismToday I think I have an idea of where you're going with this.
The answer to this question would either be: The sock companies are really stupid and they don't know how to manage the amount of socks they make. (Improbable)
or
Socks are naturally worth less than cars so the sock companies can afford to create more socks in case there is a spike in sock sales.
Additionally - foreseeing the objections of "mutualists", and their proposition of their theories as being a superior revolutionary model that that of the communists - I would add that the greatest efficiencies and achievements of industrialization have come about because of social labor.
The "mutualist" model of production would be a step backward, and would only be preferable due to prejudice.
"Marginal Utility" would only be a useful representation of value if the economy were composed entirely of individual contractors, each with access to the means of production (i.e. as in the theories of mutualists like Proudhon.)
Since that is NOT in fact the primary mode of production in real-world market economies, its utility as an illustration of where value comes from is limited, and I dare say artificially truncated for the self-interested reasons you indicate in this video.
This has been flagged as spam show
About the air example, let's say someone was scuba diving and was running out of air, Wouldn't the value air be very valuable to him/her subjectively? The value of air to him/her wouldn't matter whether someone's labor made it (another tank of air) or no one's labor made it (swimming to the surface and getting it for free). No matter where it comes from, it is valuable because he/she needs it.
tph2010 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
tph2010 2 weeks ago
About the air example, let's say someone was scuba diving and was running out of air, Wouldnt the value of another tank of air be very valuable to them subjectively?
tph2010 2 weeks ago
@tph2010 assuming they couldn't just surface and breath air, yes. One rich person might pay a million dollars in this scenario. The Marxist theory of value is not about unlikely happenings, but the larger picture. Note that this scenario also assumes no competition. If there were many underwater vendors ready to sell a tank of water to the unfortunate scuba diver, the price would likely reflect the price of a tank of air, plus a substantial amount for the underwater store.
MarxismToday 2 weeks ago
Well a capitalist would respond to your air example by saying that the supply of air is much greater than the demand hence that explains why air is free.
ImAznnn 1 month ago
@ImAznnn Good point, but what happens when supply and demand reach an equilibrium? Why do cars cost more than socks? Is it because I buy more cars than socks, thus driving up demand? Again the capitalist may respond that there is a greater supply of socks, thus the lower price. Supply and demand can explain everything, but only using the most surface level understanding. A good solid understanding would require us to then ask "Why are there so many more socks?"
MarxismToday 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
ImAznnn 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MarxismToday I think I have an idea of where you're going with this.
The answer to this question would either be: The sock companies are really stupid and they don't know how to manage the amount of socks they make. (Improbable)
or
Socks are naturally worth less than cars so the sock companies can afford to create more socks in case there is a spike in sock sales.
ImAznnn 3 weeks ago
@ImAznnn Very close. I wouldn't say "naturally" worth less, but just that they take money/effort/labor to make.
MarxismToday 3 weeks ago
I love you, Marxism Today.
TheRevolutionaryBob 6 months ago
Additionally - foreseeing the objections of "mutualists", and their proposition of their theories as being a superior revolutionary model that that of the communists - I would add that the greatest efficiencies and achievements of industrialization have come about because of social labor.
The "mutualist" model of production would be a step backward, and would only be preferable due to prejudice.
RemoveYourChains 7 months ago
"Marginal Utility" would only be a useful representation of value if the economy were composed entirely of individual contractors, each with access to the means of production (i.e. as in the theories of mutualists like Proudhon.)
Since that is NOT in fact the primary mode of production in real-world market economies, its utility as an illustration of where value comes from is limited, and I dare say artificially truncated for the self-interested reasons you indicate in this video.
RemoveYourChains 7 months ago