Law of Value 3: Das MudPie (1 of 2)

If you spend any time reading about Marx's theory of value on the internet you probably will come across some version of this asinine excuse for a critique called "the mudpie argument." The basic style of the mudpie argument is similar to many advanced by those who know nothing about Marx's theory of value: one constructs a ridiculous strawman argument that has nothing to do with Marx and then proceeds to knock it down with "devastating" brilliance, moral outrage, and a few clever asides about Stalinism. The MudPie argument goes something like this:

Marx claimed that labor is what gives all commodities value. But what if I make a mudpie? This is a product of labor yet nobody will buy it. It has no value. So Hah! Take that Karl Marx!

Full Text at:
http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/law-of-value-3-das-mudpie

Category:

Education

Tags:

• marx
• value
• labor theory of value
• economics
• mudpie
• austrian
• capitalism
• social labor
• direct
• market
• indirect

[DesecrateConformity]

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.

[brendanmcooney]

@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]

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.

[brendanmcooney]

@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]

this is boring

[brendanmcooney]

@Rekopaa Youtube needs more boring, more pondering, more learning, less racket. Entertainment is no longer relevant. Entertainment is reactionary. Boring is liberatory.

[samsonlovesyou]

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.

[okayillgonow]

@brendanmcooney: Mud-pie theory: the biggest strawman argument in the universe.

[termsofusepolice]

So much for my dream of starting a mud pie company...

Excellent vids. Thank you.

[DesecrateConformity]

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I think I understand now.

[DesecrateConformity]

@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?

[aerdil]

@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.