The LTV v.

[Faceless]

A serious question that I would like to raise on my Marxist theory. It is pretty dodgy.

It concerncs the labour theory of value (LTV).

The way I see it is that those who use the subjective theory of value would comment that the value of a commodity is not determined by labour input. Often the example used is that if I'm hungry and see a chocolate bar in a shop it is appealing to me having a "higher use value" but I resist, have dinner and then return. It now has a lower use value. But a typical Marxist response, to my knowledge is that the price stays the same, not changing because I have eaten. The neoclassical model fails to explain WHY the value of the chocolate bar is and was 50p, altering only relative to inflation. The "exchange value" is inherent it seems. It alters relative to labour input as I have come to understand and as more of it (the commodity) can be produced with less labour, the price goes down.

But I come unstuck at explaining the water-diamond paradox. So why is it that the value of a diamond is do high yet to produce it the labour input is very low. I am hoping that there is someone here to discuss this cornerstone of Marxist economics. What is it in the rarity of the diamond that gives it such a value. Does its prettiness alter anything? A rotten egg is rare but I don't want any. An industrial diamond has a much lower value than the cut diamond but is put to better use. If diamonds were abundant they would be as valuable cut as glass.

I find it hard to believe that the subjective theory of value can explain this value paradox for all its other shortcomings. Is this covered by Marxists yet covered up by apologists or a real flaw.

I'm aware that many don't care but even though I'll keep fighting it would be comforting to know that it will happen one day regardless. The revolution that is.

[antieverything]

I've never subscribed to the LTV. I've also never prescribed to historical determinism. As a matter of fact, I see them both as rather irrelevant. Exploitation doesn't need to be proven "scientifically" to be apparent. Socialism doesn't have to be inevitable to be desirable or possible!

[LSD]

I'm not really sure Labour Value is valid, but just for the sake of argument and from within the theory, one could argue that there is a great deal of labour involved with diamonds, namely in finding them. Finding gravel is easy, it requires little labour to gather/find, but the rarity of diamonds means that to acquire them one must put in a fair amount of labour

I don't know if that actually works, but it's the first thing I thought of.

[Faceless]

antieverything, I am quite aware that I don't have to subscribe to the LTV to be a Marxist and fight for liberation. This is just a quest for the truth. The LTV seems extremly good at explaining other more mundane goods and the subjective theory is very dodgy indeed but then again the above paradox throws a spanner in the works. If it proves that the LTV is wrong then so be it. If the neoclassical thing proves right and we never end up being able to be able to predict anything then fine. I just have a thirst for knowledge. Even you have to admit that there is comfort, if no practicality, in understanding the progress of history.

It's an interesting idea that there is labour in finding these things but then some of these things can just be stumbled across. As for the diamond, the one which is not of jem-quality that is used in industry does not pay the same price. I read something somewhere about the bourgeoise being able to command a price for the ultra-rare unlike other products which he must use the normal labour-dictated exchange value of.

Still searching out only of curiosity.

[antieverything]

The labor theory of value isn't as hole-ridden as a lot of people think! It did, after all, thrive for a hundred years or so...it had a good deal of writing concerning every possible problem, many of these are used by Marx (he didn't make this stuff up, after all. There was a ton of establishment economics in Das Kapital).

Sure, it makes sense, I just think that subjective value theory makes more sense and doesn't have to patch as many holes as LTV does.

[Faceless]

The subjective theory doesn't for me seem so satisfying because it fails to explain why X amount of a commodity costs $2 and not $3 and why as productivity increases, as does the price drop. Perhaps the real world is a combination of both theories. It's the nature of this that I would like to get to know.

And can anyone give me the low down on the commodity fetishism theory.

[pedro san pedro]

it would seem to me that the value of a diamond is achieved not solely thru the amount of labour involved in its aquistion and the relative scarcity of diamonds as a commidity, but also thru what the diamond represents. to me the diamond is a relatively useless possession (i'm talking about jewellery, not its use in industry), and is predomiantly a status symbol. people wear them to look rich etc for what ever reason -perhaps in a simalar manner to a peacock using fancy feathers to attract a mate.

one can also question why particular brands of clothing are more expensive than others -fashions now dictate a large amount of a commidities value