Can use value be quantified?

[Red Star Rising]

As a newcomer to this forum I am also fairly new to the writings of Karl Marx on capitalism, so please forgive me if this is a stupid question or is easily answered. Anyway, I've been reading through Das Kapital lately (I'd only previously seen extracts, never tried to read it as a book; it's of an intimidating stature as far as books go). I haven't progressed very far so forgive me if the answer becomes clear later. So what Marx appears to be saying (I am open to correction) is that value is a dual relation between the use-value of a commodity and the exchange value and (I think) value is a representation of congealed human labour power.

Use value so far seems to be purely qualitative - the utility of thing. But can someone then explain to me how utility has an impact value? Is there a commensurable thing common to all use values? Take, for example, a table (table A) where one leg is slightly shorter than the other three - and a table and a table with legs which are all equal in length (table B). Table B is better at being a table than table A, thus its use value is greater than that of table A which is in turn more useful than a table with only two legs or no legs at all.

Table A will have a lower value and usually a low cost than table B even if the same human labour time was expended on it. Does this mean that utility can be quantified when it seems on the surface to be purely qualitative?

Again, sorry if this is a stupid question.

[Red Economist]

As a side note, Neo-Classical economists (mainstream economics) dropped the theory of 'use-value' and the labour theory of value in the late 19th century because it was difficult to quantify (along with giving a moral right for workers to own the product). But I don't think that answers you question directly, at least from a Marxian perspective, but it might help.

[Red Star Rising]

As a side note, Neo-Classical economists (mainstream economics) dropped the theory of 'use-value' and the labour theory of value in the late 19th century because it was difficult to quantify (along with giving a moral right for workers to own the product). But I don't think that answers you question directly, at least from a Marxian perspective, but it might help.

Aristotle dropped the idea of relative and equivalent values having a common measurable attribute but Marxian economists recognize the common quality of human labour. This concept was incompatible with the foundation of Greek society. Perhaps the quantification of utility will only reveal itself when capitalism is gone.

[Luís Henrique]

Anyway, I've been reading through Das Kapital lately (I'd only previously seen extracts, never tried to read it as a book; it's of an intimidating stature as far as books go).

Ah, it is not more intimidating than Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings...


So what Marx appears to be saying (I am open to correction) is that value is a dual relation between the use-value of a commodity and the exchange value and (I think) value is a representation of congealed human labour power.

Value is congealed human labour. It is also dependent on use value; no matter how much human effort is put into a useless object, it won't have value. That's because value is a property of commodities; in order to have value, an object (or action) must be buyable, and it is only going to be buyable if someone deems it useful.

However, object A being more useful than object B doesn't make it more valuable. It may make it more expensive, ie, it might affect the price of that object; it doesn't affect its value.

To use your example,


Take, for example, a table (table A) where one leg is slightly shorter than the other three - and a table and a table with legs which are all equal in length (table B). Table B is better at being a table than table A, thus its use value is greater than that of table A which is in turn more useful than a table with only two legs or no legs at all.

The use value of a table is providing a horizontal, stable surface upon which other objects (dishes, bottles, glasses, books, notebooks, etc.) can be placed. A good table provides a neatly horizontal and reasonably stable surface, so that objects placed upon it won't slide or be subjected to sudden movements that may hamper their utility.

Your table A is not, therefore, a good table; the fact that it has a shorter leg makes it unstable, which will lead to sudden movements of its surface, depending on how much weight is applied to different sectors of its surfaces. Classically, when you suddenly lift your elbows from the place you had been resting them upon table A, a bottle will fall or a glass full of liquid will spill it off.

If table A's mangled leg is too short, table A may become useless: it will be impossible to use it as a table. This will make table A valueless. But attention: if it takes 4 hours to make a table, then the value of tables is equivalent to 4 hours of congealed human labour. However, if in producing, say, 250 tables (ie, 1,000 hours of human labour congealed in the form of tables), one useless table will be produced in average, then the value of a table is not actually 4 hours of congealed human labor, for 1,000 hours of congealed human labour do not produce 250 tables, but only 249. And so the value of an individual table would be 1,000/249 hours, which is something like 4.016 hours.

However, it may be that table A isn't that much deffective that it becomes useless. In which case, a smart costumer may convince the seller to sell it at a discount ("your table is priced at 4 hours of congealed human labour, but since it is slightly deffective, I won't buy it at this price"). A less smart costumer may buy the table at its price and only later realise it is deffective - and this can be actually worse for the seller, since the costumer is quite likely to blame the seller and stop buying there, and even telling family, friends, co-workers, local paper, etc., that the seller is dishonest.


Table A will have a lower value and usually a low cost than table B even if the same human labour time was expended on it. Does this mean that utility can be quantified when it seems on the surface to be purely qualitative?

In the case of tables, I don't think this happens. I think there is a more complicated relation in the case of luxury goods (what is the use of a Ferrari? Is it more useful than a VW beetle? Maybe; I can "use" a Ferrari to make the point that I can throw away a quarter million dollars, which I can't do with a VW beetle); but then it is use value being modified by value, not the other way round.


Again, sorry if this is a stupid question.

Nah, it is a quite important and interesting one, and people who would think it stupid are probably the ones not understanding it or underestimating its importance.

Luís Henrique

PS. Notice also that value hasn't an empyrical existence. Capitalists do not make their prices calculating the values of their commodities. They calculate the costs and add a mark-up. Value is manifest in prices, but it isn't consciously used to calculate prices.

[Red Star Rising]

Ah, it is not more intimidating than Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings...

Haha true. But you still have to grapple with the difficult language; being written over a century ago and translated from German and whatnot



Value is congealed human labour. It is also dependent on use value; no matter how much human effort is put into a useless object, it won't have value. That's because value is a property of commodities; in order to have value, an object (or action) must be buyable, and it is only going to be buyable if someone deems it useful.

However, object A being more useful than object B doesn't make it more valuable. It may make it more expensive, ie, it might affect the price of that object; it doesn't affect its value.

To use your example,



The use value of a table is providing a horizontal, stable surface upon which other objects (dishes, bottles, glasses, books, notebooks, etc.) can be placed. A good table provides a neatly horizontal and reasonably stable surface, so that objects placed upon it won't slide or be subjected to sudden movements that may hamper their utility.

Your table A is not, therefore, a good table; the fact that it has a shorter leg makes it unstable, which will lead to sudden movements of its surface, depending on how much weight is applied to different sectors of its surfaces. Classically, when you suddenly lift your elbows from the place you had been resting them upon table A, a bottle will fall or a glass full of liquid will spill it off.

If table A's mangled leg is too short, table A may become useless: it will be impossible to use it as a table. This will make table A valueless. But attention: if it takes 4 hours to make a table, then the value of tables is equivalent to 4 hours of congealed human labour. However, if in producing, say, 250 tables (ie, 1,000 hours of human labour congealed in the form of tables), one useless table will be produced in average, then the value of a table is not actually 4 hours of congealed human labor, for 1,000 hours of congealed human labour do not produce 250 tables, but only 249. And so the value of an individual table would be 1,000/249 hours, which is something like 4.016 hours.

However, it may be that table A isn't that much deffective that it becomes useless. In which case, a smart costumer may convince the seller to sell it at a discount ("your table is priced at 4 hours of congealed human labour, but since it is slightly deffective, I won't buy it at this price"). A less smart costumer may buy the table at its price and only later realise it is deffective - and this can be actually worse for the seller, since the costumer is quite likely to blame the seller and stop buying there, and even telling family, friends, co-workers, local paper, etc., that the seller is dishonest.



In the case of tables, I don't think this happens. I think there is a more complicated relation in the case of luxury goods (what is the use of a Ferrari? Is it more useful than a VW beetle? Maybe; I can "use" a Ferrari to make the point that I can throw away a quarter million dollars, which I can't do with a VW beetle); but then it is use value being modified by value, not the other way round.



Nah, it is a quite important and interesting one, and people who would think it stupid are probably the ones not understanding it or underestimating its importance.

Luís Henrique

PS. Notice also that value hasn't an empyrical existence. Capitalists do not make their prices calculating the values of their commodities. They calculate the costs and add a mark-up. Value is manifest in prices, but it isn't consciously used to calculate prices.

Thanks :) That clears a few things up.

[Five Year Plan]

No, use value is not quantifiable, except in an informal "this isn't as useful as it used to be" sort of way, and certainly not quantifiable in the way that socially necessary labor time is.

[Luís Henrique]

Thanks :) That clears a few things up.

You are welcome.

Luís Henrique