Comment

Comment on .ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this

Cowbee@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

You haven’t explained any of your arguments, even given any examples. You’ve simply made claims equivalent to “it’s absurd,” without actually contesting Marx’s positions. Either way, since you yourself said to forget everything else, I’ll narrow it down to what you believe is the key point:

He can address it all he wants, it contradicts his argument I went over in the first place, that exchange of use values necessitates the presence of value. Forget everything else, this is the argument.

Marx’s argument is not contradictory in the slightest. Land, for example, has no “value” but has a price, which is capitalization on rent. Natural resources, for example, have to be processed into a sellable form, which requires land, tools, and labor. Marx’s chief argument isn’t that use-values exchanging means they must have an underlying value alone, it’s that the prices in an economy are not random, and so must be the result of their common elements, as can be exchanged for the universal commodity, money.

Commodity production is a social process, and commodity exchange is also a social process.

I’ll also requote your original comment:

Capital rests on the argument ~that the fact qualitatively different (in terms of use values) commodities are exchanged for each other in different quantities requires a quality they share in common which only differs in quantity from one commodity to the next, and Marx posits that the only quality this could be is being products of labor. Yet this is very clearly not something that all commodities have in common,

This is not at all “very clear,” and you have not given a single example disproving this. Again, simply saying that something is clear is not in fact a counter.

and that a thing’s status as a commodity and its ability to be exchanged for other commodities has nothing to do with its being a product of labor.

Again, incorrect. Commodities are social products, and all are produced via labor. The commodity market itself relies on the differences between price and value to re-allocate labor, capital itself is a control system. You cannot divorce a commodity from the very fact that commodities of its type are made by labor, even if you could magic a widget into existence, its price would still be that of the rest of the widgets, because widgets are socially provided in a given socially necessary abstract labor time.

The only way Marx’s argument can be accepted is if you start with the presupposition that commodities are valued by the labor required to produce them.

Again, wrong. Marx’s argument is an observation of how labor and capital is allocated, and how capitalist economies function in reality. Marx is not concerned with idyllic, fantasy conditions where wizards can conjure infinite objects, Marx is talking about the concrete world where goods are produced, bought, and sold on a market in a non-random manner.

How this happens that commodities are exchanged at their “value” is a complete mystery by the way, since Marx says it has nothing to do with the conscious considerations of either the buyer or the seller.

Again, no capitalist is going to calculate SNALT, they are going to notice the cost of production and sell above that, meeting the market roughly where similar commodities are sold. Supply and demand therefore regulate price to value, and when this diverges, labor is re-allocated out of less profitable commodities and into more profitable ones, creating a social average. This is the driving force. It isn’t intentional on any one capitalist’s part, it’s capital itself playing the market regulator.

source

Sort:hotnew top

timdrake@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
You repeatedly say I never made an argument or gave examples despite me doing both, you just reassert things in opposition to these arguments and examples which you deny the existence of and then in the same breath say that ~“simply saying things is not in fact a counter.” You are the one that doesn’t know the difference between making an argument and just saying things.

You insist that naturally occurring things need to be “processed” before they can be sold despite anyone with a functioning brain knowing that’s not universal. Do we even live on the same planet? At a certain point all I can do is say it’s obvious.

Marx’s chief argument isn’t that use-values exchanging means they must have an underlying value alone, it’s that the prices in an economy are not random, and so must be the result of their common elements, as can be exchanged for the universal commodity, money.

The problem is that I’ve read his argument and know for a fact that it goes exactly how I described it, that Marx does not establish prior in the argument that prices in an economy are not random, with the common element notion following from this; in fact, this is a conclusion he gets to simultaneously with the conclusion that exchange-values are a reflection of this third thing, these are actually the same conclusion. You can’t read what I’ve said, you can’t read what Marx said, what else can I do? This is the start of the argument:

Hence exchange value appears to be something accidental and purely relative, and consequently an intrinsic value, i.e., an exchange value that is inseparably connected with, inherent in commodities, seems a contradiction in terms. Let us consider the matter a little more closely.

A given commodity, e.g., a quarter of wheat is exchanged for x blacking, y silk, or z gold, &c. – in short, for other commodities in the most different proportions. Instead of one exchange value, the wheat has, therefore, a great many. But since x blacking, y silk, or z gold &c., each represents the exchange value of one quarter of wheat, x blacking, y silk, z gold, &c., must, as exchange values, be replaceable by each other, or equal to each other. Therefore, first: the valid exchange values of a given commodity express something equal; secondly, exchange value, generally, is only the mode of expression, the phenomenal form, of something contained in it, yet distinguishable from it.

Again, no capitalist is going to calculate SNALT, they are going to notice the cost of production and sell above that, meeting the market roughly where similar commodities are sold. Supply and demand therefore regulate price to value

You don’t need to reiterate that it isn’t intentional twice in response to my message where I acknowledge Marx says it isn’t intentional. And you just assume value = SNALT again.

source
- Cowbee@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  Again, no examples provided for natural resources that don’t need to be processed in any way, shape or form, including transport, as the average way to get them. No, it isn’t obvious at all that there are natural resources that involve no processing or transport yet are sold this way on average, and you continue to refuse to provide an example for something so “obvious.” Very unserious.
  
  Regarding Marx on value, you’re confusing how Marx builds up his argument, proceeding from the most basic element upward and outward, and developing a many-sided view, with the totality of the base of his argument. Marx is specifically referencing how prices appear “random” at first, as prices of each commodity is itself different, but that they can all exchange for each other in consistent ratios through the universal commodity, money, and that this all proceeds from how we produce and distribute, ie labor. This naturally also includes natural resources, which themselves have no “value” alone.
  
  In other words, prices are not actually random, despite first appearances, and they all reduce down to their constituent elements, the basic block of value being labor-time as this is the basic input in production from which all else flows. Capitalism is a control system for the distribution of labor, and works to accumulate as much capital as possible.
  
  None of this is based on “assumption,” it’s based on clear observation of how capitalism functions.
  
  source