Ancap tears

True, i never really used the board so idk

There's no point in even debating them. The confederate-flag-user has already been exposed to things like the LTV many times he simply chooses to deflect and feign ignorance. They aren't interested in arguing in good faith or learning.

It seems like a pretty fun exercise, watching them trying to justify their idealistic views. Also, hopefully this might be destroying the strawman they have built for Marxism in their heads.

it's funny how the only "proof" of marginalism over the labor theory of value is over fringe shit like art, trading cards and… socks for amputees. The labor theory of value holds for the needs and wants of most people.

Even those can only seen as effective "counter-examples" by someone misinterpreting the theory to make it about subjective or individual value

Theory-less foot soldier gang here.
Can someone summaries wtf is happening in that thread and each side's arguments (or lack of thereof)? I can't stand reading their uppity bullshit.

...

this. a $2 pair of socks is worth $2 even though not all individuals have a personal need for that item. an amputee could steal those socks and sell them on ebay and they'd still have a market price of $2.

summary: a bunch of libertarian brainlets act stupid so they don't have to debate the labor theory of value in good faith.

So they're spouting semantic bullshit and dodging the argument?

Precisely. If they argued in good faith, they wouldn't have. Leg to stand on, they know it and so just went full retard.

So if I understand LTV correctly, exchange value is determined by SNLT, and price correlates with exchange value but is separate from it. Is that correct?

Yes, in so many words.

The case of aged wine, which was brought up in the thread, is an interesting one. Sam Williams has argued that the reason that aged wine is more expensive is that by keeping it off the market the capitalist is essentially trading a greater pay-off tomorrow for an immediate but smaller one today. In other words, you can think of a cask of aged wine in much the same as a loan or mortgage. The capitalist trades immediate pay-off or enjoyment today for interest payments tomorrow; by contrast, a landowner might also hold an empty and till development in the nearby area drives up prices to his liking. A similar process occurs with the development of skilled labor, the prices for skilled labor has to be higher than unskilled labor because those who take the time to attain said skills may defer years of their working lives and/or go into debt.

It's really not magic to explain, it can be explained by simple rent-seeking behavior on the part of Vinyard owners and that doesn't debunk LTV at all. No extra labor or cost-expenditure really goes into aging wine, it really is just a pure rent-seeking behavior.

Under socialism, if aged wine was desired, we would plan its production in sufficient quantities that people would have an ample supply of it. There would be no price difference between aged wine and fresh wine simply because someone went to the "work" of letting it chill in a basement.

It's nothing new.

Attached: IMG_20180408_171622.jpg (1751x1648, 554.68K)

If a commodity has no use value to him for any reason, it won't have value to him. Ancaps criticize Marxism and don't know basic concepts

It is though. Before they were fairly open about it in their own circles, now they have to lie to newcomers. "Milk before meat" is what the Mormons call it.

Debating on /liberty/ is pointless, there is no way in the world these idiots would concede one meter to opposing views because their theories are ultimately based on morals, ethics and idealism. They will all become fascists anyway, if they are not already (later on they brought up muh Autism Level muh genes etc. in the same thread). That Confederate user is especially bad because he had been spoonfed every Marxist theory by now in detail and still pretend to get you with stupid "gotcha!" phrases. Every time he chooses to die on this hill to the bitter end.

Debates are for the audience, not for the opposing side, but nobody with an open mind browses fucking /liberty/, so give it up. If you are really interested in those type of shitfests, you can go to fucking reddit if you want.
reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/

It might be pointless, but making them show their idiocy is satisfying. Also, you never know, in the past there have existed those rare cases where an ancap goes socialist of some sorts.

but this misses the point. the socks have a value on the market. Marx's LTV describes social value because production and exchange in a capitalist economy is socialized, i.e. production happens for sale in general and not just production by one individual for another individual. this is why Marx's description of the value of things depends upon socially necessary labor time and not individual labor time.

I read stocks, got me extremely confused.

No, Value is determined by the snlt, exchange value takes on the form of value, but it isn't always a 1:1 relation.

the problem with these arguments is that each side is really talking about a different thing. Marginalists genuinely believe the aim of economics is to successfully predict relevant values in the normal operation of business, finance and state under capitalism, and for the specifics of this in particular contexts (especially micro) their framework might be useful. But they are making the same blunder Smith, Ricardo and the classical political economists made: taking the current social order as a naturally occurring phenomenon, as a given much like physicists take the machinations of nature as a given before speculating. This insight was a key part of Marx's critique of political economy (critique here understood in the Kantian sense), and as such Capital and so-called Marxian economics generally are not really attempting to produce workable numbers for the executive and corporative powers to utilize, but quite simply getting at a description of the laws of motion of the capitalist social order. This shift in perspective quite simply renders both approaches incommensurable, despite the fact that Marx developed many of his concepts taking as a base what the classical economists had been doing and his claims to solve many of the problems they encountered.

When you look at the rare cases a marginalist abandons their axiomatic-theoretical field of mathematical technicalities and equation solving under accepted presuppositions and attempts to tackle things like economic history, sociology or psychology, you really see what a disaster looks like. This is the root of the vulgar ideas about how "capitalism was always there since it's basic human nature(tm), it was just obstructed by evil authoritarian states and the aristocracy" (although I don't think actual academics ever get this far into the delusion). So really, when you argue with a marginalist you first need to make the playing field clear since a marginalist and a marxist don't even really agree on the questions that need answering even though it appears as if they do. Marginalists talk down from the edifice of ruling ideology while Marxists talk from the outside.

This is addressed at some point in the debate.

Of course it is ignored by the opposition, as such view of capitalism is not in line with their framework. They are caged in their idealism.

Commodity fetishism is a hell of a drug.

I remember how during the Bush and Obama years they openly talked about killing literally everyone in the Government and then went quiet when Trump got elected. That or became full-on Fash like Cantwell.

Wow, I can't read this. Why are you making such useless arguments? Sometimes I feel like I don't argue well, but I read a single post here and my confidence soars.
The Communists in that thread basically NEVER define anything, and that confederate guy just kept repeating "subjective value" and the Communist just went "nah labor lol". Maybe it gets better later, but I don't know if I want to take the time to find out.
When you argue, you need to define a point and put it in solid foundations. You need to frame a debate where they have to disprove you or be wrong.
I just read this main thread, and, wow, it is kind of sad. You guys are saying things like "God they just won't listen to FACTS and LOGIC" even though the arguers in the thread were really, really unconvincing. I don't understand how you expected them to change anyone's mind. Are they going to just spontaneously agree with the assertions of the Communists?
The reason the arguments they made were useless is because they never boxed anyone in. They are questions like "In an economy, cars and pens are produced. Both are at equilibrium. Which one is more expensive and why."
I know there is this idea of the "question argument". I am pretty sure Socrates was known for asking people questions repeatedly to lead them into showing themselves as wrong. Maybe you could have success with this in real life, but that is ONLY because of your ability to control a discussion in real time through questioning. On the internet, you are basically asking somebody "Argue with me and btfo yourself". No one will ever BTFO themselves when you ask them a question. They can not do so. It is impossible. They have reasons for what they believe and they DO have logic to them. When you ask a question, you are basically saying "Make an argument that I will have to to disprove right now". This is INFINITELY more difficult than simply creating your own argument for your own position. It is more difficult because you are entirely reliant on the other person to create a situation to argue with. Every single assumption they make, you will have to disprove. You will have to cut through every single position they make to fell their argument. It is like trying to cut down a tree by sawing away all of the roots. Is it technically possible? Yes. Should you do it? No.
Instead, the argument should have started something like this.

The machine has 100 hours of labor in it. It makes 100 pairs of socks. Thusly, each pair of socks has 1 onehundredth of 100 hours or one hour of labor invested in each pair by the machine.
So, by taking the value of the yard of wool to be an hour of labor, we can calculate the value of a pair of socks as so.
1 hour of labor + 1 hour of wool + 1 hour of machinery = 3 hours of labor.
The sock has been calculated to have three hours of labor in it.
This is what the Labor Theory of Value is, simply, as it relates to socks.
By writing this argument as I did, I have clearly defined what the Labor Theory of Value is, and now, instead of defining my argument across 40 shitposts against 40 shitposts, I can refer back to this, or recreate another argument like it.
I want to point out that at least one of the Communists im that thread doesnt seem to know what they are talking about. One of the people over there actually hits it right on the head when he says
In response to the Communist saying (to paraphrase) that Capitalists "created demand out of thin air for fidget spinners".
In response to the Communist saying (to paraphrase) that Capitalists "created demand out of thin air for fidget spinners".
In response to the Communist saying (to paraphrase) that Capitalists "created demand out of thin air for fidget spinners".
The user is 100% right in response to the Communist here. It is ridiculous to imagine that we can, from an economic standpoint, determine the use value of something. There is not a Marxist "Theory of Use Value" wherein we can calculate fidget spinners as useless and socks as useful. This is far more of a political/social question, like "Should we buy stupid things like fidget spinners?"
Im this same vein, there are numerous things that the LTV doesn't apply to. Antique cars are an example of this. Good luck making an economic theory that can calculate the value of irreproducible things like antiques. The moment your produce them, they are no longer antiques, btw, just to save you some trouble of trying to use the LTV. I think Marx does explain things "like" antiques - land, for instance. I am just unaware of the arguments, because I havent read all of Capital. (Is it correct to say all of Capitals, considering that there are three of them?) If not, it is probably just rent seeking.
You guys really need to lay off the doomposting about the "poor ignorant liberty posters that hate facts". It isn't like they are recieving the word of god in the form of perfect arguments. They are being argued with very poorly, and it is arrogant to assume that them not agreeing with the Communists (and thusly me and you) is solely because of thier personal failure, when it is, at least partially, the fault of the Communists making poor arguments.
Big post, but I put big effort into it so don't hate me.
Pasting this, I have realized how giant this post is. All potential shame has left me as my post is no longer concievable in human terms of effort. It is a posthuman effort post; the work of a true autist.

Good post but please put an entire empty line between paragraphs.

Like this.

I actually disagree with you. Even when definitions were made clear in the debate and an explanation of what Marxian value is was given, the AnCaps resorted to their common argument "that's not what value means". While the Marxist side understands the Libertarian position, the opposite is not true.

About the question argument, the answer was the intended one, so it did work. The AnCap was cornered into stating that the cost of production plays a role in prices.

About the fidget spinner, the Marxist wasn't try to determine the use value, but was remarking on the sudden increase in demand of fidget spinners due to marketing as there was a debate on what demand is.

That is reddit spacing? I thought everyone agreed that one space like so
Was enough and was still readable without doing a double like

so?
The only reason I ask is because this is the first time I have ever seen anyone tell anyone to double space their posts out, and I don't want to do it and get ignored for typing like a redditor.

The point I was making was specifically about how the AnCap was right and the Marxist was not. I understand that the Marxist was making another point, but he was wrong and the AnCap picked up on that. His premise "Capitalists created the demand for fidget spinners. It wasn't 'real' demand" was false. I understand that might not have been the point he was trying to make, but it is the one he ended up making by implication.
I think I misrepresented my point. I am not saying that the AnCaps were completely open to having their ideas changed and the Marxist failed. I am saying that the Marxist did not argue in a clean, defined way, and thusly he failed to be as convincing as he could have been. You say that they clearly defined use value, but I read a good deal of the posts and that was never communicated to me. Maybe they define it later on or I missed it, but large portions of their arguments are poorly defined and underdeveloped.
I might have misrepresented myself here as well. I was not trying to say asking a question as an argument is completely useless, but it just creates more arguments from the opponent. I'm sure it might have led to the opponent conceding the cost of production plays a role in prices, but it was still a poor choice. It is a poor choice because instead of taking a roundabout path to create an opening to argue, you can take a straight path by opening your argument in a defined way.
In short, asking a question is "useless" (for lack of a better word) because it is far superior to make your own argument. It is "useless" because there is a far superior alternative.
Also, getting someone to recognize production costs affect price isn't really a Marxist thing.

Reddit spacing is a forced meme. Caring about whether you are doing it is the actual indicator of being from reddit.

I thought reddit spacing was putting a "double" space inbetween a green texted quote and the reply to it, or generally making a new paragraph for every one or two sentences (so that there are a lot of unnecessary spaces). Either way it's a dumb meme. I just think the way you wrote your post is annoying to read.

You might be right about the fidget thing, although from my understanding, he wasn't calling it "not real" demand, he was trying to show how marketing plays a big role in that demand, as he then states that fidget spinners stopped selling after it stopped being "cool". I agree that manufactured demand is real demand, but it wouldn't be there if the manufacturing wasn't.

Maybe that could also work, but sometimes asking the question with 2 available answers(here being the car being more expensive or we can't know) is cornering the opponent into either answering what you want them to, or making an absurd statement.

Yes, but it goes against their theory of subjective value while it is compatible with the Marxist theory.

it's the default newline system on iOS and android.

Ancraps BTFO by reason and evidence.

Attached: Безымянный.png (1110x165, 25.45K)

God, what a bunch of idiots…

Attached: a13c9f385d052a12a40870fbe9ebaf64-imagepng.png (1055x335 184.78 KB, 165.58K)

just been browsing /liberty/ those guys are stupid as fuck

you're not hard to spot

Attached: marx pepe.png (1000x940, 394.91K)

>>>/reddit/

What a shitshow. One really stupid fuckup on your side (the guy who mixed up distribution mean and mode), on the "liberty" side they don't even know the common meaning of demand. I don't believe they're actual ancaps in that thread, it's just brain-dead neonazis playing that to own the commies or whatever. I know there is overlap between ancaps and the far right, but ancaps are autistic enough that their mistakes usually come from wrong assumptions they start with, and not from how they reason with these assumptions. They would not say, "Need equals demand, but demand does not equal need" (actual quote from that thread) and ancaps also know what people mean when they say "rising marginal production cost".

Where's the fuckup with distribution mean and mode? Didn't notice it

Confederate-flag fake ancap says in post number 92937 that a "handful of outliers can really skew the average". Post 93670 makes fun of the confederate-flag guy for believing that mean and average refer to the same concept… Problem is, they usually do. The fake ancap is still wrong because the context is mass-produced stuff, so a few outliers don't matter.

Yeah, the thread in general shows their ignorance. They take comfort in their current knowledge and see anything contradicting it as a personal attack.

I used to post on /liberty/ regularly. I even corrected bad arguments surrounding the LTV when other leftypol users would try to debate. It didn't matter - even when I presented people like confederate-flag-user with real Marxist arguments he just denied, derailed, and evaded. People have explained the LTV to that autist multiple times and he plays dumb to exhaust his opponents and draw out the debate to a point where finally people just give up. He does not argue in good faith, he argues for the sake of arguing.

I'm sorry but you're not using Marx's definition of use-value here. Marx's definition of use-value has nothing to do with a measure of "usefulness" but rather a definite quantitative measurement of the physical properties of a commodity.

"The utility of a thing makes it a use value. But this utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use value, something useful. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities. When treating of use value, we always assume to be dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens of watches, yards of linen, or tons of iron. The use values of commodities furnish the material for a special study, that of the commercial knowledge of commodities. Use values become a reality only by use or consumption: they also constitute the substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that wealth. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange value. "
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S1

I don't think this is correct. Use value is not a measure of usefulness, yes, but it is a qualitative not a quantitative value. This is made clear in the initial statement of the quote: "The utility of a thing makes it a use value".

I think Austrian economic thinking does something with their brains. They essentially believe in a metaphysical moral system, but think they are grounded materialists.

Something is a use-value because it possesses utility but this is not how use-value is measured. Marx emphasizes in that quote that use-values "have no existence apart from that commodity" and it is measured in "definite quantities" which act as "material depositories." He is not describing a qualitative characteristic of something as being hard or soft, as one might of a fabric or a metal, but rather the physical properties of those things - i.e. "yards of linen, or tons of iron." The use-value is what gives material existence to a commodity, whereas labor embues it with exchange-value.

This is why Steve Keen's criticism of the LTV rests upon the transformation of use-values into exchange-values and vice versa, giving him the erroneous conclusion that machines, by contributing to use-value, can also contribute to value (i.e. exchange-value.)

I don't even think they think that. Check out post >>93473. That Hayek quote is idealism 101.

Maybe you are right but this still doesn't sit right. Can you answer the following:
Surely just because you can measure something by yards or tons doesn't make it a use value. So, how can you say it is a quantitative value, when commodities have use values in whatever quantities they come.

"A thing can be a use value, without having value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not due to labour. Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows, &c. A thing can be useful, and the product of human labour, without being a commodity. Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labour, creates, indeed, use values, but not commodities. In order to produce the latter, he must not only produce use values, but use values for others, social use values. (And not only for others, without more. The mediaeval peasant produced quit-rent-corn for his feudal lord and tithe-corn for his parson. But neither the quit-rent-corn nor the tithe-corn became commodities by reason of the fact that they had been produced for others. To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use value, by means of an exchange.) Lastly nothing can have 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."
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S1

That statement only indicates that economic goods must be an object of utility. It is because of this that one knows their physical properties provide consumers with something useful. But since usefulness might different between different individuals it would make no sense to measure it as something subjective. Which is why Marx always ties use-value to physical properties which can be measured as discrete units. Yards of linen, tons of steel, acres of land, etc.

I don't see how this contradicts what I wrote.

I don't see how this leads to use-value being quantitative. I'll make an example:
So let's say we examine 2 tons of steel. 2 tons is a quantitative value and its hardness and flexibility are qualitative values. If steel is a use value it's not because of the fact that there are 2 tons of it, but because of its qualitative values, therefore a use value is qualitative not quantitative.

I don't think we're in any position to "debunk" or "destroy" anything. I mean, Herr Marx himself was an avid free trade and Capitalist advocate. So maybe we should be following the Ancaps rather than destroying ourselves. It's the inevitable march of progress, after all.

Attached: ba236f3462609e7223e57ac02e9e54a9ecfeee2796ea62c569a5c1d180b584d9.jpg (1920x1080, 167.88K)

Fuck off, Elon

not exactly the same sense of 'qualitative' that was being discussed. hardness and flexibility of a metal are literally measurable and can be expressed in numbers.

...

There are several use values, and while neither classical economists nor Marx had an aggregation formula for putting them all together so that a pile of different things could get a score, you can say that X units of an object are X units of its use value.

At least from my understanding use value is societal usefulness. It's not meant to be a measure of something, it's a true or false value.

Would it be the other way, the material existence of a commodity is what forms its use value? I don't see how value is formed before existence.

Exchange value?
Use value?
The quote doesn't explain what is use value. It explains what it is not, it explains how it exists in commodities and in other objects. A man can create a object that has use value, a object can have use value if a man if he find it to be of utility, and a object that has a use value for others in which it is exchanged on the market with a exchange value is a commodity. This doesn't really explain what use value actually is. All we really know is that it has to relate to man finding use/utility in a object. I guess that is what the value comes from but the quote doesn't actually confirm that, explain it.

Because he is wrong.

Marx merely uses physicality as an example. This is evident by the fact that Marx numerous times talked about non-physical (service) commodities. I.e. Use-Value is not inherent to physical items, it cannot be measured in "objective" way.

>> A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference.
I.e. usefulness of commodity is not something objective, but inherent to consumer. Use-Value is based on desire.

But this is not how Marx used the term.

Every time Marx speaks of use-value he emphasizes the material aspect:
>an embodiment of value

At many points Marx uses the word "use-value" interchangeably with things like good, article, iron, linen, corn, wheat, etc.

"The use values, coat, linen, &c., i.e., the bodies of commodities, are combinations of two elements – matter and labour."
…
"As the use values, coat and linen, are combinations of special productive activities …"
…
"Tailoring and weaving are necessary factors in the creation of the use values, coat and linen, precisely because these two kinds of labour are of different qualities…"
…
"An increase in the quantity of use values is an increase of material wealth. With two coats two men can be clothed, with one coat only one man."
…
"Commodities come into the world in the shape of use values, articles, or goods, such as iron, linen, corn, &c. This is their plain, homely, bodily form."
…
"…the form of commodities, only in so far as they have two forms, a physical or natural form, and a value form."
…
"…that commodities have a value form common to them all, and presenting a marked contrast with the varied bodily forms of their use values."

The use-value is the physical body of the commodity as Marx emphasizes again and again. This is why I quoted the above section where Marx says,
"A thing can be a use value, without having value."

A ton of iron does not have use-value, it is a use-value.

The use-value is a commodity's physical body.
Use-value and material existence are the same thing. One does not come before the other.
See above. Commodities do not have use-values, they are use-values. The confusion arises because people keep confusing use-value for some kind of property of usefulness contained by a commodity which isn't what Marx was talking about.

If that's what use value is, why does Marx say:
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
It seems for Marx it is entirely possible to talk about a quantity of a use value, namely when there's a quantity of identical useful objects. The quantity of that use value is then simply the number of these objects. And surely, neither you nor me nor Marx ever stated a belief that individual happiness gained from a product simply rises in proportion when its quantity rises. It follows that use value is not a reference to individual desire.

> >An increase in the quantity of use values is an increase of material wealth. With two coats two men can be clothed, with one coat only one man.
> marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
I don't see the problem.

He is talking about use valueS. Multiple. If we assume that quantity of Use-Values increased, when we have two coats instead of one, we have two Use-Values, one for each man who gets/wants to get clothed.

You can see from this quote, that use values re not quantitative as he doesn't say "an increase of use values" but an increase in their quantity

I think you guys are making the concept of use-value out to be way more complicated than it actually is.

Obscurantism is the basis of Revisionism.

You have to present Marxism as something extremely complicated, filled with nuances and exceptions so as to keep general public uncertain about everything and permit only yourself to be authority on the question.

4chan uses two "more than" signs while Zig Forums uses three, can't blame them

This makes sense but I don't understand why would he call it use value and not the object in question or just object.
It just seems like introducing a new word that already exists to describe things.

This makes no sense.
Quantitative is numbers, a magnitude, etc.
Qualitative is a description that can not be expressed in numbers
One object, two object == Quantity
Good object, bad object == Quality

i don't understand what the complication is. "use-value"=capacity to satisfy an human need. it doesn't matter if the same object presents itself in the commodity form or if we're in a gift exchange pastoral society, in both cases it is a use-value, but this doesn't mean only "physical things" can be use-values. A service is a use-value, if it wasn't it couldn't present itself in the commodity form.

You don't understand the quote then.
You could say to increase the quantity of good objects. That doesn't make good a quantity.

Or you could say increase in quantity of objects.
doesn't make greater than one a quality.
It doesn't signify your interpretation or the other.

Oh okay, I completely understand now.

Once again in English?

You don't understand the context. The post that brings up the quote does that to point out that the reference to quantity by Marx in relation to use value does not make sense from a subjectivist utilitarian point of view, so it's clear that use value as a concept does not refer to individual taste. "Good" and "bad" are not descriptions of an object's use value either, it's the purpose(s) it can serve by virtue of its known physical characteristics.

it only doesn't refer to "individual taste" because marx always talks in terms of social wealth, social need and social value. there's no such thing as an atomized individual, yadda yadda we all know how this one goes but the point is use-value is nothing more than the capacity to satisfy human need. marx doesn't concern himself with giving a scientific law of human need, it may as well come from "fancy" as he says.

see
Sure, Marx doesn't analyze individual taste. Saying that an object is use value means that it is socially useful. It is a qualitative characterization as it depends on the object's quality not quantity.
You yourself mention that its by virtue of its known physical characteristics, or in other words its qualities.

I would imagine that Marx chose the term "use-value" because it's less awkward than "commodity body" plus it implies the object's utility (as determined by its specific physical properties.) I mean, if one actually reads the chapter, then it's clear that what Marx is doing is establishing use-value as the counterpart to exchange-value. Concrete vs. abstract, material vs. non-material, etc. And maybe he chose the word "use-value" because it's not a common word with an everyday definition that people would get confused over. (Like they're doing in this thread…)

exactly.

Wow! It's like you totally ignored the rest of the thread.
This is indeed how Marx defines it.

And this is the entire issue. When Marx describes an increase in use-values he is describing an increase in "commodity bodies" or units of a given article. He's not talking about an increase in how useful or good a given commodity is. Go back and read the post where I provided all those quotes.

Again, this is not at all how Marx defined use-value. You're inventing your own definition based upon what you think the word means.

Marx chose the term Wert (which is quite common in German), not Use-Value (it was chosen by translator).

Use-Value was introduced to define quality that makes buyer want to buy commodity.

Correct. I don't understand what's going on in this thread.

i think i get where the argument might be coming from, marx does use "use-value" to refer to "the body of the commodity" a bunch of times but always in the context of having defined use-value and value as opposite poles of the commodity form which is what he is analyzing. but the bottom line is that use-value refers to the concrete, specific aspect of whatever the use value is that confers it particular properties that satisfy a particular need. this is the more general case when you want to talk about things like services, or labor power. marx usually limits himself to talking about commodities in terms of physical objects being exchanged for one another in the market so of course the use-value of these is nothing more than the actual object. yet still, "the utility of something makes it a use value".

Bollocks.

Finally. Get a tripcode, please.

Two things:
1. Wert is value, Gebrauchswert is use-value.
2. As for your trip request: Nah.

1. I know

Non-commie here, it isn't necessary to be a communist to see why ancapism only makes sense on lethal doses of crack and amphetamines.

That doesn't mean that every refutation of AnCap is correct.

The other user already answered this.

This entire discussion began with an user confusing "use value" with the subjective needs of an individual. See here:

1. A sock is the same use-value to an amputee that it is to anyone else. It's existence as a use-value depends on its properties. These are objective, not subjective, and do not change from consumer to consumer. Marx wrote, "It is an assemblage of many properties, and may therefore be of use in various ways." Medicine does not lose its useful properties simply because a man is healthy. The medicine as an object (a "commodity body") retains these properties until they are consumed or physically altered in some way.
2. Measuring use-values is done by counting the number of commodities, i.e. 4 socks, 2 cars, 1 ton of iron, etc.

Again, here Marx wrote:
"But this utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity."
Marx is literally saying that his definition of utility is defined by the commodity and not the consumer. The utility of a commodity exists only in its physical properties and is limited only by that. The subjective needs of the consumer will vary not only between individuals but also of an individual at different points in time. Marx here is making it clear that something like medicine has equal utility in his definition whether or not an individual is sick or healthy. The medicine retains its physical properties until the individual chooses to consume it.

but the useful properties of medicine are useful in virtue of the fact that they possess the capacity to satisfy a human need or want. this doesn't contradict the idea that the useful properties belong to the object itself.

the ancap quoted by the user you quoted talks about "someone else determining what's useful for me". i don't know what the user you quoted was on about (the repetition of the same phrase 3 times makes it seem like he was on coke) but this kind of argument as espoused by the ancap is pretty typical and the correct response is in fact to point to the social nature of wants and the social division of labor created by such (which isn't exactly the same as "capitalists create demand for fidget spinners" but whatever).

marx gives a story/analogy in the fetishism section of the same chapter about robinson crusoe in an island and it's pretty clear there how the different modes of labour that acquire or produce different use values are borne out of the needs of the individual -latter on, when he comes back to talk about a self-conscious society, this same principle applies on a social scale.

Indeed

Attached: uppers,fam.jpg (225x224, 5.01K)

I would say it is you who is confusing people.

This is provably wrong as amputee will not be buying socks for personal use. Use-value of socks will not manifest itself in any way for him. What is the point of discussing imaginary qualities? That's idealism.

He doesn't. He is speaking in specific context.

use-value=capacity to satisfy an human need

use-value=capacity to satisfy an human need

use-value=capacity to satisfy an human need