Marx's Value Theory--a potential critique

Hinrich Kuhls kls at unidui.uni-duisburg.de
Fri May 10 16:01:39 MDT 1996


At 23:19 09.05.1996 EDT, boddhisatva <kbevans at panix.com> wrote:

>        Again you do not deign to make your own point.  However, your posting
>reminds me of a somewhat egregious error I made.  I said the value of
>anything is what someone actually pays for it.  This should be modified to
>take into consideration the shifting nature of currency supply.  The value of
>something is a person's *willingness* to pay for it, which is most rationally
>approximated by what he actually pays for it with the understanding that some
>correction for currency fluctuation should be applied.

Karl:

It is naturally still more convenient to understand by value nothing at all.
Then one can without difficulty subsume everything under this category.

Thus, e.g., J. B. Say: "What is value?" Answer: "That which a thing is
worth"; and what is "price"? Answer: "The value of a thing expressed in
money." And why has agriculture a value? Answer: "Because one sets a price
on it." Therefore value is what a thing is worth, and the land has its
"value," because its value is "expressed in money."

This is, anyhow, a very simple way of explaining the why and the wherefore
of things.

from: http://csf.Colorado.EDU/psn/marx/Archive/1867-C1/Part6/ch19.htm



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---




More information about the Marxism mailing list