Just a bunch of people who don’t understand that socially necessary labor cost (production cost), market value, and use value are three different things and it’s like the most rudimentary Marxist economics to distinguish them
they do understand it just ask them how they feel about a private website like twitter suppressing their speech and all of a sudden they recognize that some privately owned properties arent the same as others and therefore the rules should be different for elon kicking you off his site vs elon kicking you out of his front room
Market value is how much it can be/is sold for. Use value is the value it has not to be sold but to actually be used (which often has a direct economic expression, especially the use value of manufacturing equipment). You know what production cost is, the combination of wages paid along with materials, rent, etc. paid (in all cases, given value by other labor but filtered through market value) in order to produce something such as a commodity (item made to be sold).
So any single commodity has for itself at any given time: The cost of its production, the price you can sell it for (these two are different in part due to the monopolizing nature of their being only so many means of production), and what the commodity is actually good for besides selling it.
Most of the supposed counterexamples they mention in the thread have a non-zero cost of production (or very high, in the Juicero case), but virtually zero market value (because people don’t want to buy it) and disproportionately low use value (because it’s gadgetbahn or macaroni art or whatever).
Just a bunch of people who don’t understand that socially necessary labor cost (production cost), market value, and use value are three different things and it’s like the most rudimentary Marxist economics to distinguish them
Some of them in the thread are literally describing those three things and asking “why didn’t Marx think of that HUH?”
It drives me mad how people just sort of riff in total ignorance on such easily-accessible work based on their vibe-impressions.
It is verboten in the west to criticize the holy unquestionable sacred dogma of free speech.
Mao was much more correct in his approach: “No investigation, no right to speak.”
If you don’t know what you’re talking about, shut the fuck up until you do.
Who don’t understand what they are talking about. At all. Literally talking out of their entire ass about something they know nothing about.
they do understand it just ask them how they feel about a private website like twitter suppressing their speech and all of a sudden they recognize that some privately owned properties arent the same as others and therefore the rules should be different for elon kicking you off his site vs elon kicking you out of his front room
How does marx define all three?
Market value is how much it can be/is sold for. Use value is the value it has not to be sold but to actually be used (which often has a direct economic expression, especially the use value of manufacturing equipment). You know what production cost is, the combination of wages paid along with materials, rent, etc. paid (in all cases, given value by other labor but filtered through market value) in order to produce something such as a commodity (item made to be sold).
So any single commodity has for itself at any given time: The cost of its production, the price you can sell it for (these two are different in part due to the monopolizing nature of their being only so many means of production), and what the commodity is actually good for besides selling it.
Most of the supposed counterexamples they mention in the thread have a non-zero cost of production (or very high, in the Juicero case), but virtually zero market value (because people don’t want to buy it) and disproportionately low use value (because it’s gadgetbahn or macaroni art or whatever).