Ask Lemmygrad

because price and value aren't the same thing. the fancy necklace fetches a much higher price due to supply and demand, but that says little about its actual value in relation to the regular necklace

Price does not always reflect value, there are items that have distorted prices. Luxury status symbols are definitely in that camp.

you have hit upon one of the theoretically most challenging parts of marxism. the relationship between use values (what you are just calling value here, meaning the practical use that people get out of a commodity) and exchange value (usually represented as the usual monetary price you purchase it for in the market) has been a common criticism of marxism since Capital was published. my advice is to ignore it at least until you are thoroughly grounded in the basics and possibly far longer than that unless you feel particularly drawn to the issue. for day to day organizing it is not something that will come up.

many papers and dissertations have been written by people far smarter than me (and probably you, too) on this, so once you have read Capital and the other marxist basics there will be plenty of material for you to engage with on all sides of the debate. for example, i have had this piece on redsails in my bookmarks for few years.

I highly recommend the new translation of Capital by Paul Reitter. It took me literal years to finish Vol 1 the first time (I believe it was the Moore/Aveling one seen on Marxists.org, if so I can't speak to the quality of Fowkes'). I'm rereading the Reitter translation and it flows so much better. Also has a professionally-produced audiobook out already.

I remember Richard Wolff talking about it back then, so I went back to look it up, but in this video, he only gives a background story, I remembered incorrectly. Therefore as an explanation it does not suffice. Nonetheless maybe for context I can leave it here: https://youtu.be/eU-AkeOyiOQ

The part mentioned is at the 44th minute mark.

Chapter 1 book 1 of capital gets into this, I just started reading it, this is my understanding. Marx says commodities have two values exchange value (what it sells for) and use value (he gives a weight of steel or something as an example). This exchange value is also influenced by the use value. The example he gives is that diamonds (I assume they didn’t have as much industrial use back then) if they were not coveted by the wealthy, they would not be worth Labor time necessary to extract them from the earth. So he says the labour theory of value is wrong because the labour time needed to extract diamonds would not be worth it if commodities didn’t have a dual nature of exchange.This is just a couple pages of capital vol 1 btw. The version I have is in German and if you can speak German I suggest it it’s put out by anaconda press, it has an old introduction and it suggests that you skip book 1 and move on to other chapters first because that’s where the heavy theoretical stuff is.

I edited it a bunch to clear up my thoughts I also wanted to add I’m definitely missing something, I need to pick up my copy of capital again though.