| |
To me, the difference between value and use-value is
confusing and seems not terribly important, at first. This
is what it means to me, correct me if I am wrong. In
capitalism, the value of a product is its money value. The
use-value is what it is worth intrinsically. Capitalism
distorts this as the annotation says. For example, food is
worth a lot intrinsically, but has a very low price. We
could say food has a high use value and a low value. In
capitalism, the price of a good is often not the true value
of the good. For example, if there is little competition in
an industry then the price will be high and so will be the
profits. In effect, society suffers at the hands of the
rich capitalist. We might say other firms will eventually
enter the industry and drive profits down, but think of the
unneccessary things that go on continually in society.
There will always be a few Bill Gates types. How much money
can several billion dollars do in the way of eliminating
poverty? This leads society on wild goose chases. Profits
are sought after, yet the good may have given little value
to anyone. It is a capitalist establishment parameter that
the pursuit of profits serves the needs of the people. Marx
is subtly pointing out that this is not the case. Society
should decide what to produce in the name of true intrinsic
value for everyone, not for the notion of profits.
Additionally, there are inherent problems in the motivation
in capitalism. The motto is always to cut costs and many
times the quality is eliminated. If you produce food that
looks good with no nutritional value, but tastes the same,
Go For It. Marx's idea of value screams another motivation
and his belief is that this new motivation will much more
accurately serve the happiness or wealth of society
(i.e. prices and profits do not reveal needs. This is a
myth). |
|