20
submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Hello Lemmygrad. I'm trying to understand the labour theory of value, and one thing I'm wondering about is the value of 'status symbols'. For commodities like this, it seems the price is always higher than the same commodity that's not a status symbol (like fancy cars or whatever). Those commodities seem to have disproportionately more value than the extra labour needed for the non status symbol version. How does LTV explain that?

My thinking is that LTV assumes that people will choose the cheaper between two equivalent commodities, but the opposite is actually true for status symbols (like, between 2 necklaces that are exactly the same, demand for the more expensive one will actually be higher). Does that sound about right? Or am I missing something deeper?

I should really get around to reading Capital...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Looks complicated :/ I'll just leave it be for now then, thanks

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Hey I just wanted to let you know chapter one of capital is very complicated but also extremely rewarding to try wrap your head around, it’s precisely in chapter one where Marx gives the reader creative tools to try and imagine a new kind of economy. It’s complicated but keep at it, take it slow and try understand what he means. It doesn’t help that capital was written over 100 years ago so he gives kind of antiquated examples of production. Try playing with the ideas he gives you with modern commodities.

this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2025
20 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmygrad

995 readers
91 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS