Finally. Get a tripcode, please.
Ancap tears
Leo Gray
Alexander Adams
Two things:
1. Wert is value, Gebrauchswert is use-value.
2. As for your trip request: Nah.
Adam Wood
1. I know
Xavier Roberts
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.
Levi Perry
That doesn't mean that every refutation of AnCap is correct.
Justin Sullivan
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.
Grayson Edwards
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.
Matthew Robinson
Indeed
Chase Harris
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.
Jordan Howard
use-value=capacity to satisfy an human need
use-value=capacity to satisfy an human need
use-value=capacity to satisfy an human need