How do Marxist respond to the criticism that his assertion that the real value of a commodity is only determined by...

How do Marxist respond to the criticism that his assertion that the real value of a commodity is only determined by labor-time is an arbitrary definition which cannot be proved and is of no use for the empirical description of economic phenomena because it is impossible to measure the value any commodity in units of necessary labor time?

Most marxists worth anything abandoned marxian ltov.

He isn't a Marxist, but Kevin Carson has a fairly thorough attempt to rehabilitate the LTV in Mutualist Political economy. The general gist is that as the supply of goods expands to meet demand, they prices will drift towards the cost of producing the good in labor and materials (which since materials are acquired through labor, means labor determines the cost and eventual price of the good).

Because we require at least some definition of value, however arbitrary, in order to actually speak of economics in the first place.
Really now, this isn't a Marx specific thing.

I'll look into that. Do you know of any other attempts to rehabilitate the ltv?

One thing that comes to mind when thinking about your summary of Carson's attempt is how is it shown that human labor is the only thing which determines that? For instance, if a farmer uses a horse to plow land why is the human the only source of new value while the horse contributed no new value? It seems arbitrary to assert that but it leads to Marx's conclusion that capital does not create value.

I don't think Carson touches on that, but I think the breeding, rearing, and upkeep of the horse would be considered the human labor creating value here.

>TIL that the Mona Lisa is the most expensive painting in the world because of the paint.

If a horse reproduces with another horse is that considered creating value? If not, why?

Nature creates use value aswell.

So you're disagreeing with Marx then? According to him human labor is the only source of value that gets embodied in commodities.

Generally by asking you how much of Kapital you've read, and if you have done so, go on to ask how many other marxists works you've read. As soon as they've found something that you haven't familiarized yourself with, they say you're not qualified to comment on Marx's theories because you don't really understand them.

I'm a different user.
And I don't disagree with Marx, because is not my idea, is Marx's idea.

According to Marx, you need to look at the labour involved in extracting the natural resource. If breeding horses required no effort, then it wouldn't have a lot of value.

I didn't see you say "use" when I first replied. I wasn't talking about use value in the previous posts though. I wasn't disputing that nature creates use value.

I read your post wrong (see ^).

>...er, because of the painter.

Not creating a lot of value is different than creating no value isn't it?

Well you still have to go into the field and pick up your horse. That's labour time.

So a stallion having intercourse has 0 labour value (unless ypu count taking the horse to the female horse ). Bees making crops possible have 0 labour value.

Those things have use value tho.

Labor put into realizing an exchange value is labour crystallized into the commodity
Bluntly, you still gotta feed the thing and take it to market and convince folks they ought to buy it

Marxian ltov is garbage. That being said, values =/= prices, marx doesn't deny that demand and supply affect prices. And you also have no imagination, there's plenty of ways to rationalize those cases even without that very basic distinction, for example you could very well argue that the value of the mona lisa must take into account the labor of all the failed painters that it takes to find a da vinci.
Which is why it's an unfalsifiable theory.

He mentions exceptions to the general rule. Part of his project is to incorporate marginalist critiques into the LTV.

No, because until human labor is invested into the offspring in training it or otherwise utilizing it, the new horse has no value.

>marxism

>youtube nuphilosopher