What is the difference between price and value?

[Grayson Walker]

And how is this objectively determined? I understand the labor theory states that the more labor put forth into a commodity the more value it will have, but some nihilist AnCap keeps saying that value is subjective, and that if more labor determined value then a man who digs ditches with a toothpick will create more value than one who digs ditches with a shovel. How do I counter this? And what is a very broken-down and simple explanation of the labor theory of value, with an example?

If anyone is wondering I'll be debating this guy soon but I'd like to know what I'm talking about, and I can't figure out how to debunk the subjective theory of value.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

And how is this objectively determined? I understand the labor theory states that the more labor put forth into a commodity the more value it will have, but some nihilist AnCap keeps saying that value is subjective, and that if more labor determined value then a man who digs ditches with a toothpick will create more value than one who digs ditches with a shovel. How do I counter this? And what is a very broken-down and simple explanation of the labor theory of value, with an example?

If anyone is wondering I'll be debating this guy soon but I'd like to know what I'm talking about, and I can't figure out how to debunk the subjective theory of value.

Price is what the commodity sells for. The exchange value represents how much socially-necessary labour time has been expended to produce the commodity. The money-equivalent of the exchange value is the number that prices fluctuate around.

And value is connected to the socially-necessary labour time, the time it would take an unskilled worker to produce the commodity using the most time-efficient process possible given the development of technology. Ditches can be dug with a shovel, and digging them with a toothpick is unnecessary.

But if you want ditches with a shape so clearly defined they have to be dug out with toothpicks, then yes, both their value and average price would be higher than that of regular ditches.

[RedMaterialist]

And how is this objectively determined? I understand the labor theory states that the more labor put forth into a commodity the more value it will have, but some nihilist AnCap keeps saying that value is subjective, and that if more labor determined value then a man who digs ditches with a toothpick will create more value than one who digs ditches with a shovel. How do I counter this? And what is a very broken-down and simple explanation of the labor theory of value, with an example?

If anyone is wondering I'll be debating this guy soon but I'd like to know what I'm talking about, and I can't figure out how to debunk the subjective theory of value.


To begin with, Marx said that price is the monetary expression of value. On the toothpick argument, Marx showed that the labor has to be "socially necessary." From Capital, Chapter One, Section One:


"Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time."

An attempted explanation (very simple) of labor value:

A shoemaker has several types of materials in front of him..nails, leather, hammer, etc. All of these things together have a value. But when the shoemaker builds a shoe, when he/she puts all these values together in a socially useful object, then the value of the shoe is greater than the value of the materials. Thus the value of the shoe is the value of the labor, including the labor supplied for the leather, nails, etc.

The shoemaker owns the tools, shop, etc., therefore he owns his own product, the shoe.

When the shoemaker is replaced by a gigantic corporation, say Nike, the same basic labor theory applies, with this important difference: Nike owns all of the means of production, tools, factories, etc. Therefore Nike owns the product of the workers. The worker is separated (alienated) from their means of production and also separated from their own product.

Why all this matters is that the Nike workers add their labor to the materials provided by Nike. Their labor adds to the value of the tennis shoes produced. This additional value, surplus value, added value, the added labor IS NOT PAID BY NIKE TO THE WORKERS. Instead, Nike sells the shoe at its real value, pays the workers a wage (as low as possible) and keeps the difference as profit.

Nike's PAID costs including wages for a tennis shoe might be $25.00. But the real value of the shoe is say, $100.00, including the value added by the workers. And guess who gets to keep the difference? Nike.

Now, the bourgeois apologists say that the workers get the full value of what they produced, which is total bullshit. They say that when Nike takes the shoe it is Nike's intelligence, skill, entrepreneurship, etc. that allows Nike to sell the shoe for $100.00. This is the, IMO, "magic invisible hand" argument. The Nike tennis shoe increases in value by magic.

[RedMaterialist]

And how is this objectively determined? I understand the labor theory states that the more labor put forth into a commodity the more value it will have, but some nihilist AnCap keeps saying that value is subjective, and that if more labor determined value then a man who digs ditches with a toothpick will create more value than one who digs ditches with a shovel. How do I counter this? And what is a very broken-down and simple explanation of the labor theory of value, with an example?

If anyone is wondering I'll be debating this guy soon but I'd like to know what I'm talking about, and I can't figure out how to debunk the subjective theory of value.

Why not give us the terms of the debate; such as "Resolved...etc." I think a lot of people here would like to help you win the debate, especially since you, I think, are from South Carolina, U.S.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

A shoemaker has several types of materials in front of him..nails, leather, hammer, etc. All of these things together have a value. But when the shoemaker builds a shoe, when he/she puts all these values together in a socially useful object, then the value of the shoe is greater than the value of the materials. Thus the value of the shoe is the value of the labor, including the labor supplied for the leather, nails, etc.

The shoemaker owns the tools, shop, etc., therefore he owns his own product, the shoe.

When the shoemaker is replaced by a gigantic corporation, say Nike, the same basic labor theory applies, with this important difference: Nike owns all of the means of production, tools, factories, etc. Therefore Nike owns the product of the workers. The worker is separated (alienated) from their means of production and also separated from their own product.

Why all this matters is that the Nike workers add their labor to the materials provided by Nike. Their labor adds to the value of the tennis shoes produced. This additional value, surplus value, added value, the added labor IS NOT PAID BY NIKE TO THE WORKERS. Instead, Nike sells the shoe at its real value, pays the workers a wage (as low as possible) and keeps the difference as profit.

Nike's PAID costs including wages for a tennis shoe might be $25.00. But the real value of the shoe is say, $100.00, including the value added by the workers. And guess who gets to keep the difference? Nike.

Now, the bourgeois apologists say that the workers get the full value of what they produced, which is total bullshit. They say that when Nike takes the shoe it is Nike's intelligence, skill, entrepreneurship, etc. that allows Nike to sell the shoe for $100.00. This is the, IMO, "magic invisible hand" argument. The Nike tennis shoe increases in value by magic.

That was an excellent explanation! I have to say it really improved my understanding of why capitalism is inherently exploitative. Thanks!:grin:

[Die Neue Zeit]

To answer the OP, the difference depends on the subject area, but even in finance value is very different from price except in a perfectly competitive free market.

[Grayson Walker]

Wow, your explanation was pretty much perfect. As for rules of the debate I don't believe there are any other than no making lengthy messages (it's a kind of bracket set up; I will inevitably go against the guy at some point). It's on an App called iFunny, which has pretty much been taken over by politics so I'm a member (and founder) of a leftists group on it. It's actually fairly sizable; we have 400 or so members and it's a very new group.