What does he mean by value?

When I told you to just read Das Kapital, I meant it. This is a literature board, read the literature.

> Every useful thing, as iron, paper, &c., may be looked at from the two points of view of quality and quantity. It is an assemblage of many properties, and may therefore be of use in various ways. To discover the various uses of things is the work of history.[3] So also is the establishment of socially-recognized standards of measure for the quantities of these useful objects. The diversity of these measures has its origin partly in the diverse nature of the objects to be measured, partly in convention.

> The utility of a thing makes it a use value.[4] But this utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use value, something useful. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities. When treating of use value, we always assume to be dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens of watches, yards of linen, or tons of iron. The use values of commodities furnish the material for a special study, that of the commercial knowledge of commodities.[5] Use values become a reality only by use or consumption: they also constitute the substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that wealth. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange value.

> Exchange value, at first sight, presents itself as a quantitative relation, as the proportion in which values in use of one sort are exchanged for those of another sort,[6] a relation constantly changing with time and place. Hence exchange value appears to be something accidental and purely relative, and consequently an intrinsic value, i.e., an exchange value that is inseparably connected with, inherent in commodities, seems a contradiction in terms.[7]

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm

I forgot the bit on exchange value and labour, from later in that chapter.

> As use values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as exchange values they are merely different quantities, and consequently do not contain an atom of use value.

> If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour. But even the product of labour itself has undergone a change in our hands. If we make abstraction from its use value, we make abstraction at the same time from the material elements and shapes that make the product a use value; we see in it no longer a table, a house, yarn, or any other useful thing. Its existence as a material thing is put out of sight.

this

ad hominem

non est argumentem

fallacium pointum outum est

Use value: is an object useful for a particular purpose
Exchange value: for what price does an object sell on the market

>having a worldview that does not incorporate Marxian analysis

They have to come into it given that everything is or isn't objective or subjective.

It's people that ascribe value to anything, or would things have value if there are no people to ascribe them any?

A non-empirical nonsense definition of value that isn't repeatably and exists only to justify his criminal ideology.

Good thing Dialectical Materialism is provably false and doesn't exist, and that Capitalism has triumphed finally and without contest.

>non-empirical
>provably false
What did he mean by this?

>that image

I suppose it is the hour when salty retards emerge from their crockeries

That the Law of Value is not empirically verifiable, and that Dialectical Materialism--a system of historical analysis that has nothing to do with the aforementioned retarded theory--is also demonstrably false. That is what I meant, brainlet. Perhaps you should read the post twice before you attempt to answer.

Six in the morning? What does that even mean, idiot? What the hell is a crockerie?

Did you mean fallacia demonstrandi?

It's a cupboard where you store plates. Also where the fuck are you that it's 6 AM, Poland?

Serbia. Is this where the term "crock of shit" comes from? Is a crock a plate? What the fuck is the etymology of this word? It isn't Latin. It isn't Greek. Old English? Isn't that just German?

Old English crocc, crocca "pot, vessel," from Proto-Germanic *krogu "pitcher, pot" (source also of Old Frisian krocha "pot," Old Saxon kruka, Middle Dutch cruke, Dutch kruik, Old High German kruog "pitcher," German Krug, Old Norse krukka "pot"). Perhaps from the same source as Middle Irish crocan "pot," Greek krossos "pitcher," Old Church Slavonic krugla "cup." Used as an image of worthless rubbish since 19c., perhaps from the use of crockery as chamberpots.

>has nothing to do with the aforementioned theory
Great thing you brought it up then, postlet.

your thinking is 17th century

>That the Law of Value is not empirically verifiable
quora.com/What-testable-predictions-does-the-Labor-Theory-of-Value-make

user you'll have a hard time getting Marxists to explain their terms without getting self-referential and specialist-term-vomitting on you.

>Dialectical Materialism
Wasn't that like, not Marx?

So how do you determine use-value?

>Marxists always complain people don't understand Marxism or are attacking a straw man
>when they actually explain what Marxism really is its even more retarded than the straw man /pol/ has constructed

elaborate