|
Xander77 posted:Someone mentioned that the big flaw with Marx's theories is the assumption (prevalent among economists at the time) that labor has an inherent value, rather than its value being determined by demand. I'm not exactly going to read Das Kapital - economic texts are a bit beyond my poor humanities student brain - but how true is that? I think often people get tripped up on semantics and just make argument up based on how they think Marx defined value rather than how he actually did. The issue is that when Marx is talking about value, he doesn't mean how much you pay for it down the shops or how useful it is to you which people might assume is the case based on ordinary day-to-day uses of the term. Marx recognises these qualities exist, it's not like he ignores them, there's just different terminology to describe them. Value refers to the amount of socially necessary labour time needed to create a commodity. If it takes an hour to create a hammer, 1 hour of labour is its value regardless of the level of demand for hammers. It's not like people suddenly wanting hammers can go back and retroactively change the amount of time it took to produce a hammer. Demand can certainly impact exchange value and price, but those are separate terms from straightforward value. I'd say whoever made that comment had just never read Marx because the criticism just doesn't make sense.
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2020 12:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 09:52 |
|