How do marxists and mutualists respond to the subjective theory of value

[Masked]

Given that a lot of people think this is at least better to the labor theory of value, or that it's slammed dunked it I was interested in some responses.

There's paul mattick's critique which I got from wikipedia, but there must be a lot more right?

Thanks, kind regards.

[Ocean Seal]

Value is not a consumer process. It is not what you are willing to spend to get, it is what one productive firm is willing to spend to make it for you.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

At best, the subjective theory confuses value and price. That is, it tries to say what the price of a commodity will be, and then calls that "value" (to be fair, a lot of bourgeois economists do that, hence the water-diamond nonsense). In the labour theory of value, it is expected that prices will fluctuate a bit around the strict labour value, part of which can be attributed to consumer preference, but also to other factors - the ability of the consumer to pay, etc. But these fluctuations average to approximately the labour value. If they don't, the "offending" firm is ejected from the market.

But if value is equal to the price and the price is determined purely by preference, we would have ridiculous situations of roses being sold for 10 000 Euro (let say it's my anniversary and I've forgotten to buy flowers) and metals like osmium (which no one particularly values) being given out for free. More than that, the subjective theory can't explain why advances in production technology correspond to changes in the average price - did people start to value aluminum less when a cheap method of extraction was devised?

[Cheese Guevara]

The Subjective Theory of Value does not refute the Labour Theory of Value. Both are quite compatibile. In a droll, reductionist sense, the Labour Theory of Value is quite correct. All "value" is simply humans re-ordering sunlight.

There is nothing in The Subjective Theory of Value that Marx himself didn't already say. Marx was well aware that price and value may differ wildly, but considered it irrelevant to his theory of value.

[Masked]

Thanks guys, I think I understand, would it be fair to compare it to marx's view of supply and demand. That if they're in "equilibrium" they fail to account for any value? (I have read capital, but I think I'm getting this from david harveys reading capital).

Am I getting things right.

And thanks a lot guys.

[Rafiq]

When the "subjective value" is bellow the labor value, and this is quite common, companies lose profit.