The value-theory, value, and its role in economics thread.

Me and another comrade were discussing the other day how value has become so encapsulated in our society, that the value-form itself is anthropological at this point. This is key why I believe revolution, in lieu of capitalisms utter collapse, is extremely improbable in the current material conditions. Capitalism and the value form now transcends the classical concept of class struggle that Marx and Engels outlined. It is no longer just bourgeois vs. proletariat - it is literally capital (and value itself) vs. HUMANITY. 😮
 
That is deeply unsettling, but I think it belongs in the politics thread.
 
That being said, let’s talk about value - how it’s perceived, how it’s created, as well as the different types of value and their context - be it exchange-value vs. use-value, surplus-value (both absolute and relative surplus value), and different, conflicting theories of value (such as the labor theory of value, the subjective theory of value, etc), etc etc.


I don’t believe we can move beyond the prospect of value in and of itself being completely relative. I think value is inherently dependent on one’s perception.

It may be created, in part, by what one is taught (eg how much a dollar is worth in the US), but is more heavily dependent on a person’s perception of the lesson being imparted. One might agree or disagree with what they learned.

Consider 2 people and the US dollar. To an American, its value can usually be understood as a tool used for the exchange of goods/services, while a person who may have only heard about the concept of a dollar, and is unlikely to ever actually encounter one (or be in a situation in which one can be used) may see it as worthless.

Were you hoping to limit the scope of this conversation to value here in the US? Maybe I misunderstood.
 
Back
Top Bottom