Labour theory of value?

[Chambered Word]

I remember hearing one of the idiots in OI say that Marx's LToV was false because paintings change in value as they get older and such. He also mentioned housing changing in value, although I'm not sure that the theory can be applied to it because it's land. So I'm a bit confused, what's the difference between value and price?

[autonomous bomb thrower]

Value is determined by the amount of labor time socially necessary for production. This value is determined when commodities engage in exchange. Price (money) is a medium that is determined in the same way as when commodities go in to exchange for money represents gold and the amount of labor time necessary to obtain this is exchanged for a commodity with the same labor time.

[JazzRemington]

I remember hearing one of the idiots in OI say that Marx's LToV was false because paintings change in value as they get older and such. He also mentioned housing changing in value, although I'm not sure that the theory can be applied to it because it's land. So I'm a bit confused, what's the difference between value and price?

The LTV applies to commodities produced via capitalist production.

[Muzk]

The LTV applies to commodities produced via capitalist production.


This. Everything else is a strawman.

[mikelepore]

what's the difference between value and price?

The quotations from the literature that I posted in another place:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1729982&postcount=63

[epsilon8998]

I think the point you need to make is that the changes in price for those items are based on their Exchange Value. That is, their price when they go to market, and not their Use Value. That is, their inherent value to humanity as products with utility.

[Dave B]

Capital Vol. III
Part VI. Transformation of Surplus-Profit into Ground-Rent

Chapter 37. Introduction






Finally, it should be borne in mind in considering the various forms of manifestation of ground-rent, that is, the lease money paid under the heading of ground-rent to the landlord for the use of the land for purposes of production or consumption, that the price of things which have in themselves no value, i.e., are not the product of labour, such as land, or which at least cannot be reproduced by labour, such as antiques and works of art by certain masters, etc., may be determined by many fortuitous combinations. In order to sell a thing, nothing more is required than its capacity to be monopolised and alienated.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch37.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch37.htm)

[BAM]

I think the point you need to make is that the changes in price for those items are based on their Exchange Value. That is, their price when they go to market, and not their Use Value. That is, their inherent value to humanity as products with utility.

just be careful here. Utility (usefulness) is not inherent. The usefulness of something to me is subjective, even if the use-value of a commodity is given by the object's material properties.

For example, a coat is a use-value because it keeps you warm and dry, looks nice, etc., but the coat's usefulness to me depends on the weather, its design, the current fashions, its size, and so on. The human want is satisfied by the properties of the object in question, but the properties themselves do not create inherent wants, so an object is not by itself inherently useful.

(A use-value does not actually need to be a physical object, like a coat. It can be a service, for instance.)

[S.Artesian]

I remember hearing one of the idiots in OI say that Marx's LToV was false because paintings change in value as they get older and such. He also mentioned housing changing in value, although I'm not sure that the theory can be applied to it because it's land. So I'm a bit confused, what's the difference between value and price?

Value is the socially necessary labor time required for the reproduction of the commodity. The LTV is the analyis of the commodity both as a useful object and a social relation where the value of the commodity is a product of the labor time consumed in its production.

Price is the social mechanism, the mediation by which value is represented and social necessity of the commodities is realized; where in effect the total social value is apportioned. Price fluctuates above or below the individual value, but as consequence of the influence, demands, needs of the LTV.


Great book just published by Haymarket, called The Capitalist Cycle, by Pavel Maksakovsky, gives about the best explanation of these categories I've read since Marx's own explanations.

As for paintings,antiques etc. Marx was analyzing social production, although certainly the prices paid paintings are derived from general and specific economic conditions.

[BAM]

Great book just published by Haymarket, called The Capitalist Cycle, by Pavel Maksakovsky, gives about the best explanation of these categories I've read since Marx's own explanations.

As for paintings,antiques etc. Marx was analyzing social production, although certainly the prices paid paintings are derived from general and specific economic conditions.

I haven't heard of that book, but it looks quite good so I will check it out.

As for Old Masters, etc., they are things produced outside a capitalist labour process but introduced into a capitalist market. Because they are one-offs, there cannot be an average market price, price of production, etc., of these individual artefacts.

However, the fact that price deviates from value (or that something can have a price but no value) is not a disproof of Marx's theory. Indeed, it is one of the vital components of it.