Labor Theory of Value vs Utility Theory

Check out our recently published Journal of American Socialist Studies Vol. 2

If you enjoyed our video please consider checking our website out :

Also, if you are interested in helping us fund our project become a Patron (Now featuring weekly Patreon Exclusive Self-Defense Lessons with Eddie) :

Check out our online library for FREE books on Socialism, Philosophy, History, and more:

Listen to our Podcast on Spotify:

Follow us on Twitch:

Follow us on Instagram: @midwesternmarx
Follow us on Twitter: @MarxMidwest
Like us on Facebook: @Midwestern Marx

[BemkyWatchesBuffy]

Chomsky often brings up the fact that Adam Smith and his writings are almost purposefully mostly ignored while using his name and out of context snippets of his writings to justify libertarian apathy.

[rsavage-rv]

Not only do I recommend that everyone follow Cockshott's work, but I'm glad Eddie mentions Radhika Desai as well. I especially recommend her new series on Ben Norton's Geopolitical Economy Report, where she's in dialogue with economist Michael Hudson.

I think it's natural to be drawn to Marxism for ethical reasons, but we really need to be clear about the scientific underpinnings. Marxism is ultimately about production, not morality or philosophy.

[pheanox]

Any chance you might be willing to break down the issues with the unlearning economics 'value' video?

[drpeterc]

And also today we have over rigorous regulation, which big companies can afford and support their extension to keep smaller capitalists out of the market. Crafty devils these capitalists! Your website really deserves greater and greater success!!!

[AnthonyChinaski]

The ending…so true; Jordan Peterson is a liar by accident bc listening to him talk about Marx tells me he’s never read Marx

[misanek]

Utility is an alienating force on social relations, labor is an integrating force on social relations.

I think we should understand these two theories of value as a dialectic.

Utility theory of value tends to prefer to value the alienating force on social relations and labor theory of value tends to prefer to value the integrating force on social relations. In other words in what way is alienation a value? It is neccesary to mental and psychological health to keep a distance from some social relations and for others it is better to be in close contact.

[therongjr]

I have no strong understanding of economics, but is the labor theory and the utility theory mutually exclusive? It also vaguely feels like the word "value" is being used in different ways, like in the utility theory it means "price, " which I think isn't exactly the same? I'm not trying to contradict anything but just figure it out as I go along.

[rodrigogier]

Remember: value is subjective. Let's all stop buying rolls royces, and Rolls Royce will start selling cars for 10 thousand dollars!!

[nameanteater]

I thought Neo Marxist just meant people like Gramsci, or people who wanted to be seen being distanced from Marx, whilst actually just being Marxists

[tadeastuma]

Wanted comprehensive explanation, didnt get it

[chhhhhris]

Isn't consumer demand also dominated by _needs_ over _wants_ ? So for example, that which is socially necessary is more in demand than luxury goods, hence more valuable socially. A bourgeois necklace is very expensive in price, but it doesn't help the starving Yemeni's. Mcdonalds and hollywood makes lots of money, but is it more valuable than repairing american infrastructure? So can we really say price determines value? Basic human needs definitely are more valuable than bourgeois wants, that's just common sense though right?

[misanek]

I think that postmodernism can be understood correctly using Marxist theory. Marxism does not need to reject postmodernism, it should be used as a critique to further empower it. The basis is to think in terms of a dialectic between totality and fragmentation. As dialectians we strive for a total, holistic worldview, this is what is in modern terms a metanarative, post-modernism introduces a fragmentary element into all of this. Look at how the current political left is fragmented in the West, this is post-modernism. The dialectic between totality and fragmentation should be accepted as a neccesary state of affairs in the post-modern world we live in. We should not be radical in our post-modern approach, we should say that we prefer totality over fragmentation, we should hold the position that the tendency to prefer totality over fragmentation is the way forward.

[TayoDrougas]

What happened to your TikTok account? Miss you ❤

[ClayShentrup]

planning obviously can't compete with capitalism because a market gives you a way to measure how much people actually value things through the only mechanism that works: revealed preference. Even if you have hypothetical benevolent planners, they can't know the preferences of people.

[Creezusz]

"Companies trying to prevent innovations, so they can be the only commodity producer on the market". That's just wrong. Even in a "monopoly" the potential! of new competitors lead the companies to innovation. Either through increasing output, speed of production, compression of labour or through the highly anticipated differentiation of products.
What too much "imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism" does to a mf.

[ClayShentrup]

your egg analogy was about having a monopoly, which is a market failure. this is why you need the government to fix market failures. If you don't do that that's a flaw with your democracy not with capitalism. and if you can't get your government to fix that market failure via regulations, you sure as hell can't get your government to fix it through central planning.

[mattgilbert]

It's slightly disingenuous to lump the Frankfurt School in with the French Poststructuralists like Derrida and Foucault.

Rockhill is too dogmatic with his fairly shallow, vulgar critique of Postmodernism. I find quite a lot to admire in Adorno, Horkheimer (who did all the actual work), even Marcuse. Unlike Derrida or Lyotard, they were actually Marxists. I got into Marxism via the Frankfurt School, and still read a little Adorno from time to time.

There's also a distinction to be made between critics of the Postmodern Condition and actual Postmodern thinkers, writers, and artists. Jameson is not on the same page as Derrida and, to a lesser extent, Foucault (early Foucault is quite good).

It's also an overstatement to say thay the Frankfurt School and French Poststructuralists were nothing but CIA proxy stooges. The alliance between some members of FS and the OSS was rooted in the struggle against European and Japanese Fascism. It was a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and didn't last that long, and where it did persist, the influence was limited.

Rockhill tends towards dogmatism in his critique of FS and Postmodernism.

Having said all that, you made some excellent points in thoroughly debunking and burying the partisans of the nonsense that is Marginal Utility Theory. Charlatans to a one.

What are your thoughts on Modern Monetary Theory?

[ClayShentrup]

utility has the virtue of actually being correct.

[roylangston]

Jevons refuted the Labor Theory of Value, and thus all of Marxism, in 1871. Value is what something would trade for. It comes from the intersection of scarcity (supply) and utility (demand). It is not subjective because that is utility ("use value"), not value. It is not objective because that is price (what something traded for), not value. It is the COLLECTIVE judgment of a given market at a given time. The observed relationship between labor and value, as Jevons demonstrated, emerges because employers ("capitalists") devote labor to production of a given item, increasing supply and reducing its value, until the marginal labor cost is equal to the marginal value produced.
Marxist exploitation theory is also garbage, and easily refuted by a single question: How, exactly, would the worker be better off if the employer had never existed? No Marxist has ever been able to answer that question, and none ever will.

[resgresg]

Why is his critique of capitalism based on the problems of non-capitalism? Is this video a joke?