Debate help regarding Labor Theory of Value??

[Grayson Walker]

I'm getting ready to debate some nihilist AnCap on the Labor Theory. He often attacks it and says that value is subjective, a pot I value at 100 dollars may be 50 dollars to him. To be honest, I have a very elementary understanding of the labor theory; what I (think I know) is that it states that all value stems from labor. But how do you determine value? How do you measure how much labor one has done or measure the value?
Also, can someone give me a good but non-rhetorical explanation of the labor theory and why the subjective theory is wrong? I've read other posts and I often just get confused.

[tuwix]

I'm getting ready to debate some nihilist AnCap on the Labor Theory. He often attacks it and says that value is subjective, a pot I value at 100 dollars may be 50 dollars to him. To be honest, I have a very elementary understanding of the labor theory; what I (think I know) is that it states that all value stems from labor. But how do you determine value? How do you measure how much labor one has done or measure the value?
Also, can someone give me a good but non-rhetorical explanation of the labor theory and why the subjective theory is wrong? I've read other posts and I often just get confused.

Because labor value is only one of values. Marx also was using other values: use-value, exchange-value and surplus-value. Use-value is a feature of commodity that it earns due to its usage possibility. For example, a table is composed of wood, but it is more popular than wood not only because more work was include in its production but it can be used in other way than pure wood.
Exchange-value is value you can get of commodity independently from labor and use-ability. For example, diamonds. There is similar amount of work needed to get coal end diamonds. And coal's use-ability is greater than diamonds. But people recognized that its exchange-value is greater than other things and this is why they are more expensive.
Surplus-value is what capitalist gets from workers's effort for himself. And it's clear that surplus-value from diamonds is much greater than from coal.

[exeexe]

The subjective theory is not wrong. Its just one economic doctrine amongst many.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You and your "friend" are talking about two very different things. "Value" can simply mean, well, a valuation, some quality we ascribe to things and events because we value them. I value venison more than veal, for example.

But that is not the "value" that figures in the labour theory of value. Marx did not claim that our personal evaluations depend on the amount of socially-necessary labour time. That would be patently ridiculous - no matter how much it takes to produce one gramme of caviar, it is still vile gloop (why are all of my examples so posh?).

Commodities are produced and sold for definite prices. And these prices are not arbitrary - while you can technically charge a thousand dollars for a glass of water, you won't last long on the market if you do. Exchange value is that which underlies the prices, the expression of value in terms of money being the "ideal price" around which the actual prices of commodities fluctuate. This exchange value is equal to the labour value - the socially-necessary labour time necessary for an unskilled labourer to produce a commodity.

Value, or exchange value, then, is part of Marx's description of capitalism. The labour theory of value applies only to commodity exchange; it is not some "timeless" statement about the "true nature" of value, but a theory about how commodity exchange, simple and capitalist, functions.

Use value is another thing. Objects either have use value - i.e. humans use them for some purpose or other - or they don't. It can't be quantified; a diamond doesn't have "more" use value than coal, but both coal and diamond are use-values. In a technologically primitive society, coal is not a use-value.


Because labor value is only one of values. Marx also was using other values: use-value, exchange-value and surplus-value. Use-value is a feature of commodity that it earns due to its usage possibility. For example, a table is composed of wood, but it is more popular than wood not only because more work was include in its production but it can be used in other way than pure wood.
Exchange-value is value you can get of commodity independently from labor and use-ability. For example, diamonds. There is similar amount of work needed to get coal end diamonds. And coal's use-ability is greater than diamonds. But people recognized that its exchange-value is greater than other things and this is why they are more expensive.
Surplus-value is what capitalist gets from workers's effort for himself. And it's clear that surplus-value from diamonds is much greater than from coal.

What the hell am I reading? No, the amount of work necessary to produce coal is nowhere near the amount of work necessary to produce diamonds. Unless by "diamonds" you mean "lumps of rock that might contain an uncut, unpolished diamond".

[Comrade #138672]

This discussion again... We should just write a FAQ for this. This is Marxism 101.

The exchange-value of commodities is objectively determined.

AnCaps are nothing but confused right-wing liberals. Of course they will have opinions contrary to reality.

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm getting ready to debate some nihilist AnCap on the Labor Theory. He often attacks it and says that value is subjective, a pot I value at 100 dollars may be 50 dollars to him.

This nonsense is rather easy to unpack.

Assuming that when "you value a pot at 100 USD" your "valuation" actually corresponds with the price tag, his silly idea won't get them nowhere as his personal thoughts won't in any way or form change either the price or value around which prices gravitate in capitalist society.

In other words, these people want to claim that consumers determine prices/value with their preferences, which is patently nonsense. They might help themselves with pointing out that productive businesses regularly lower their prices as a response to weak sales but that is obviously something very different from value being "subjectively created".

One needn't resort to such convoluted reasoning to simply state that the pot that costs a hundred dollars is too expensive for them.

EDIT:

And this is hugely important



Commodities are produced and sold for definite prices. And these prices are not arbitrary -

If social-economic life did indeed proceed along the lines of that "subjective value" fantasy, prices would be necessarily chaotic and indeed arbitrary. You don't even need to examine the basis of a value theory since the position you're arguing against is no value theory at all.

[RedMaterialist]

I'm getting ready to debate some nihilist AnCap on the Labor Theory. He often attacks it and says that value is subjective, a pot I value at 100 dollars may be 50 dollars to him. To be honest, I have a very elementary understanding of the labor theory; what I (think I know) is that it states that all value stems from labor. But how do you determine value? How do you measure how much labor one has done or measure the value?
Also, can someone give me a good but non-rhetorical explanation of the labor theory and why the subjective theory is wrong? I've read other posts and I often just get confused.

You should take your friend to a Walmart. Both of you look at the same pot. Then tell each other what subjective value each of you puts on the pot. then take the pots to the counter. The clerk will then tell you the objectively determined value of the pot, measured in price. And it is quite objective. If your friend demands that he be allowed to pay what he thinks the pot is worth, he will get a lesson in how capitalist society enforces the objectivity of price.

[IWantToLearn]

You should take your friend to a Walmart. Both of you look at the same pot. Then tell each other what subjective value each of you puts on the pot. then take the pots to the counter. The clerk will then tell you the objectively determined value of the pot, measured in price. And it is quite objective. If your friend demands that he be allowed to pay what he thinks the pot is worth, he will get a lesson in how capitalist society enforces the objectivity of price.;)

He might say "then i'm not going to buy this here because it's price/value is not worth it for me" but if you really need it you will have to buy it no matter if you think it's price/value is right or not.

[RedMaterialist]

;)

He might say "then i'm not going to buy this here because it's price/value is not worth it for me" but if you really need it you will have to buy it no matter if you think it's price/value is right or not.

But according to him, the worth of something is determined by the individual consumer. Now he's saying that the value of a commodity is determined by something other than himself, and he has to have enough value/money to buy it if he wants it. He says, "I decided what value/price this thing has, but someone else has decided that its value/price is something else."

In other words, the purchase/sale of a commodity is an exchange of more or less equal values. That value is the objective value of the labor which has gone into the two commodities. One of the commodities, money, is the commodity which represents all other commodities. Labor is exchanged for labor.

[Brotto Rühle]

You should really check out kapitalism101.wordpress.com

He has a full series dedicated to the Law of Value.