Hubbry Logo
Use valueUse valueMain
Open search
Use value
Community hub
Use value
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Use value
Use value
Use value
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Use value (German: Gebrauchswert; Nutzwert) or value in use is a concept in classical political economy and Marxist economics. It refers to the tangible features of a commodity (a tradeable object) which can satisfy some human requirement, want or need, or which serves a useful purpose. For Karl Marx's critique of political economy, any commodity has a value and a use-value — the former manifestly appearing as exchange-value in any exchange-relation in which bearers of commodities mutually alienate and appropriate each-others commodities on the market, it's foremost the proportion in which any commodity is exchangeable for any commodities, its form as the money form within money economies.[1]

Marx acknowledges that commodities being traded also have a general utility, implied by the fact that people want them, but he argues that this by itself says nothing about the specific character of the economy in which they are produced and sold.

Origin of the concept

[edit]

The concepts of value, use value, utility, exchange value and price have a very long history in economic and philosophical thought. From Aristotle to Adam Smith and David Ricardo, their meanings have evolved. Smith recognized that commodities may have an exchange-value but may satisfy no use-value, such as diamonds, while a commodity with a very high use-value may have a very low exchange-value, such as water. Marx comments for example that "in English writers of the 17th century we frequently find worth in the sense of value in use, and value in the sense of exchange-value."[2] With the expansion of market economy, however, the focus of economists has increasingly been on prices and price-relations, the social process of exchange as such being assumed to occur as a naturally given fact.[citation needed]

In The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Marx emphasizes that the use-value of a labour-product is practical and objectively determined;[3] that is, it inheres in the intrinsic characteristics of a product that enable it to satisfy a human need or want. The use-value of a product therefore exists as a material reality according to social needs regardless of the individual need of any particular person. The use-value of a commodity is specifically a social use-value, meaning that it has a generally accepted use-value for others in society, and not just for the producer.[citation needed]

Marx's definition

[edit]
Part of a series on
Marxian economics
Concepts
Topics
Variants
Works
People
Journals
Related topics

Marx first defines use-value precisely in A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859) where he explains:

To begin with, a commodity, in the language of the English economists, is 'any thing necessary, useful or pleasant in life,' an object of human wants, a means of existence in the widest sense of the term. Use-value as an aspect of the commodity coincides with the physical palpable existence of the commodity. Wheat, for example, is a distinct use-value differing from the use-values of cotton, glass, paper, etc. A use-value has value only in use, and is realized only in the process of consumption. One and the same use-value can be used in various ways. But the extent of its possible application is limited by its existence as an object with distinct properties. It is, moreover, determined not only qualitatively but also quantitatively. Different use-values have different measures appropriate to their physical characteristics; for example, a bushel of wheat, a quire of paper, a yard of linen. Whatever its social form may be, wealth always consists of use-values, which in the first instance are not affected by this form. From the taste of wheat it is not possible to tell who produced it, a Russian serf, a French peasant or an English capitalist. Although use-values serve social needs and therefore exist within the social framework, they do not express the social relations of production. For instance, let us take as a use-value a commodity such as a diamond. We cannot tell by looking at it that the diamond is a commodity. Where it serves as an aesthetic or mechanical use-value, on the neck of a courtesan or in the hand of a glass-cutter, it is a diamond and not a commodity. To be a use-value is evidently a necessary prerequisite of the commodity, but it is immaterial to the use-value whether it is a commodity. Use-value as such, since it is independent of the determinate economic form, lies outside the sphere of investigation of political economy. It belongs in this sphere only when it is itself a determinate form. Use-value is the immediate physical entity in which a definite economic relationship—exchange-value—is expressed.[4]

The concept is also introduced at the beginning of Das Kapital, where Marx writes, but in the extract below he holds it up as a critique of Hegel's liberal "Philosophy of Right". He remained a sharp critic of what was to the Marxian view a destructive philosophy:

The utility of a thing makes it a use value. But this utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use value, something useful. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities. When treating of use value, we always assume to be dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens of watches, yards of linen, or tons of iron. The use values of commodities furnish the material for a special study, that of the commercial knowledge of commodities. Use values become a reality only by use or consumption: they also constitute the substance of all wealth, whatever may be the social form of that wealth. In the form of society we are about to consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of exchange value."[5]

This was a direct reference by Marx to Hegel's Elements of the Philosophy of Right §63 as Marx adds:

A thing can be a use value, without having value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not due to labour. Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows, &c. A thing can be useful, and the product of human labour, without being a commodity. Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labour, creates, indeed, use values, but not commodities. In order to produce the latter, he must not only produce use values, but use values for others, social use values. (And not only for others, without more. The mediaeval peasant produced quit-rent-corn for his feudal lord and tithe-corn for his parson. But neither the quit-rent-corn nor the tithe-corn became commodities by reason of the fact that they had been produced for others. To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use value, by means of an exchange.) Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value.[6]

Marx acknowledges that a nominal price or value can be imputed to goods or assets which are not reproducible goods and not produced by human labour, as correctly noted later by Engels that a product is not necessarily a commodity.[7] However Marx generally holds that only human labour expended can create value compared with Nature, through instrumentation known as modus operandi, or the method of working.[a]

Transformation into a commodity

[edit]

"As exchange-values, all commodities are merely definite quantities of congealed labour-time", wrote Karl Marx.[8] The discrepancy of the true purpose of value came to be one of the biggest sources of conflict between capital and labour. The transformation of a use-value into a social use-value and into a commodity (the process of commodification) is not automatic or spontaneous, but has technical, social and political preconditions. For example, it must be possible to trade it, and to transfer ownership or access rights to it from one person or organization to another in a secure way. There must also be a real market demand for it. And all that may depend greatly on the nature of the use-value itself, as well as the ability to package, store, preserve and transport it. In the case of information or communication as use-values, transforming them into commodities may be a complex and problem-fraught process.[citation needed]

Thus, the objective characteristics of use-values are very important for understanding (1) the development and expansion of market trade, and (2) necessary technical relationships between different economic activities (e.g. supply chains). To produce a car, for example, you objectively require steel, and this steel is required, regardless of what its price might be. Necessary relationships therefore exist between different use-values, because they are technically, materially and practically related. Some authors therefore write about an "industrial complex" or "technological complex", indicating thereby how different technological products are linked in a system. A good example would be all the different products involved in the production and use of motor cars.[citation needed]

The category of use-value is also important in distinguishing different economic sectors according to their specific type of output. Following Quesnay's analysis of economic reproduction, Marx distinguished between the economic sector producing means of production and the sectors producing consumer goods and luxuries.[9] In modern national accounts more subtle distinctions are made, for example between primary, secondary and tertiary production, semi-durable and durable goods, and so on.[citation needed]

Role in political economy

[edit]

In his textbook The Theory of Capitalist Development (1942), American Marxist Paul Sweezy claimed:

Use-value is an expression of a certain relation between the consumer and the object consumed. Political economy, on the other hand, is a social science of the relations between people. It follows that 'use-value as such' lies outside the sphere of investigation of political economy.

Marx explicitly rejected Sweezy and Uno's interpretation of use-value (see the previously cited quotation from 1859, in which use-value is distinguished from the general concept of utility). In a draft included in the Grundrisse manuscripts, which inspired the starting point of A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy and Das Kapital, Marx states:

The commodity itself appears as unity of two aspects. It is use value, i.e. object of the satisfaction of any system whatever of human needs. This is its material side, which the most disparate epochs of production may have in common, and whose examination therefore lies beyond political economy. Use value falls within the realm of political economy as soon as it becomes modified by the modern relations of production, or as it, in turn, intervenes to modify them. What it is customary to say about it in general terms, for the sake of good form, is confined to commonplaces which had a historic value in the first beginnings of the science, when the social forms of bourgeois production had still laboriously to be peeled out of the material, and, at great effort, to be established as independent objects of study. In fact, however, the use value of the commodity is a given presupposition—the material basis in which a specific economic relation presents itself. It is only this specific relation which stamps the use value as a commodity.

— Karl Marx, Fragment on Value, in: Grundrisse, Notebook 7 (1858), emphasis added[10]

In his text The Making of Marx's 'Capital', Roman Rosdolsky[11] explains the role of use value in Marx's economics. Marx himself, in the introduction to his Grundrisse manuscript, had defined the economic sphere as the totality of production, circulation, distribution and consumption. However, as Marx did not live to finish Das Kapital, he did not theorise how commercial relations would reshape the sphere of personal consumption in accordance with the requirements of capital accumulation.[citation needed]

Minor issues remained from these neoclassical theories, such as the question of the proper empirical definition of capital and labour in the laws of factor substitution. Other empirical issues include the so-called Solow Residual in which the heterogenous nature of labour is thoroughly explored for its qualitative elements beyond differentiation, and the concept of total factor productivity, prompting some to consider such things as technology, human capital, and stock of knowledge. Later scholars, such as Walter Benjamin, Fernand Braudel, Ben Fine, Manuel Castells and Michel Aglietta attempted to fill the gap in Marx's unfinished work. In modern times the theory has been extended to conclude that conversion of energy-driven work does not rely on labour-intensive inputs; thus use can be unsupervised work that develops a notion of human capital.[citation needed]

Equation: A = P + hL (A, the Concept of Substitutive Work = P, the loss of Primary Productive Energy (which is P/Ep, the coefficient of efficiency) + h, the units of energy (which is the energy consumed by workers during work done) * L, Labour time per hour)[citation needed]

Utility

[edit]

Marx's concept of use-value seems akin to, but in reality differs from the neoclassical concept of utility:

  • Marx usually assumes in his analysis that products sold in the market have a use-value to the buyer, without attempting to quantify that use-value other than in product units of price, and commodity value. (this caused some of his readers to think wrongly that use-value played no role in his theory). "The utility makes it a use value,"[12] The neoclassicals, on the other hand, typically see prices as the quantitative expression of the general utility of products for buyers and sellers, instead of expressing their exchange-value. For "Price is the money-name of the labour realised in a commodity".[13]
  • In neoclassical economics, this utility is ultimately subjectively determined by the buyer of a good, and not objectively by the intrinsic characteristics of the good. Thus, neoclassical economists often talk about the marginal utility of a product, i.e., how its utility fluctuates according to consumption patterns. This kind of utility is a "general utility" which exists independently from particular uses that can be made of a product, the assumption being that if somebody wants, demands, desires or needs a good, then it has this general utility. According to his supporters Marx would have allegedly rejected the concept of marginal utility precisely because it accentuated profit on capital returns over the usefulness or utility of labour. Thus the wider application of general utility lay in variable rates of productivity, since higher labour inputs could raise or lower the price of commodity. This was the true concept of Use as a Value system: the higher the rate of 'productiveness' the more labour 'crystallised' in the article.[14]
  • Marx rejects any economic doctrine of consumer sovereignty, stating among other things in his first chapter to Das Kapital that "In bourgeois societies the economic fictio juris prevails, that every one, as a buyer, possesses an encyclopaedic knowledge of commodities".[citation needed]

In summary, different concepts of use value lead to different interpretations and explanations of trade, commerce and capitalism. Marx's main argument is that if we focus only on the general utility of a commodity, we abstract from and ignore precisely the specific social relations of production which created it.[citation needed]

"Indifference" of capitalists

[edit]

Some academics such as Professor Robert Albritton, a Canadian political scientist, have claimed that according to Marx, capitalists are basically "indifferent" to the use-value of the goods and services in which they trade, since what matters to capitalists is just the money they make; whatever the buyer does with the goods and services produced is, so it seems, of no real concern.[citation needed]

But this is arguably a misunderstanding of business activity and the bourgeoisie as a class.[15] Marx thought that capitalists can never be totally "indifferent" to use-values, because inputs of sufficient quality (labour, materials, equipment) must be bought and managed to produce outputs that:

  • will sell at an adequate profit;
  • are legally permitted by the state to be sold;
  • do not destroy the reputation of the supplier (with its obvious effect on sales).[citation needed]

For this purpose, the inputs in production must moreover be used in an economical way, and care must be taken not to waste resources to the extent that this would mean additional costs for an enterprise, or reduce productivity.[16] The Theory of Use Values relates directly to human labour and the power of machines to destroy value, "Living labour must seize on these things, awaken them from the dead, change them from merely possible into real and effective use values".[17]

It is just that from the point of view of the financier or investor, the main concern is not what exactly is being produced as such or how useful that is for society, but whether the investment can make a profit for him. If the products of the enterprise being invested in sell and make a profit, then that is regarded as sufficient indication of usefulness. Even so, the investor is obviously interested in "the state of the market" for the enterprise's products—if certain products are being used less or used more, this affects sales and profits. So to evaluate "the state of the market", the investor needs knowledge about the place of a product in the value chain and how it is being used.[citation needed]

Often, Marx assumed in Das Kapital for argument's sake that supply and demand will balance, and that products do sell. Even so, Marx carefully defines the production process both as a labour process creating use-values, and a valorisation process creating new value. He asserts only that "capital in general" as an abstract social power, or as a property claim to surplus value, is indifferent to particular use-values—what matters in this financial relation is only whether more value can be appropriated through the exchanges that occur. Most share-holders are not interested in whether a company actually satisfies customers, they want an adequate profit on their investment (but a countertrend is so-called "socially responsible investing").[citation needed]

In modern times, business leaders are often very concerned with total quality management in production, which has become the object of scientific studies, as well as a new source of industrial conflict, since attempts are made to integrate everything a worker is and does (both their creative potential and how they relate to others) in the battle for improved quality. In that case, it could be argued not just labour power but the whole person is a use-value (see further Richard Sennett's books such as The Culture of the New Capitalism, Yale (2006). Some regard this practice as a kind of "wage-slavery".[citation needed]

From beginning to end, and from production to consumption, use-value and exchange-value form a dialectical unity. If this is not fully clear from Marx's writings, that is perhaps mainly because he never theorised the sphere of final consumption in any detail, nor the way in which commerce reshapes the way that final consumption takes place.[citation needed]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Use value

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Use value, also termed value in use, refers to the utility or capacity of a commodity to satisfy human needs or wants through its consumption or application, as distinct from its measured in terms of tradability against other commodities. This concept originated in classical with , who highlighted its separation from market-mediated worth by noting that essentials like possess immense use value yet minimal , whereas luxuries like exhibit the inverse, a puzzle known as the water-diamond paradox. Smith posited that while use value arises from the thing's inherent properties, stems from the labor required to produce it, laying groundwork for subsequent theories. David Ricardo refined the distinction, emphasizing use value as a prerequisite for any to enter exchange, though he focused primarily on labor as the quantifier of value proper. systematized the idea in Capital, defining use value as the concrete, qualitative attributes that render a useful in specific ways—such as a providing warmth—independent of its role in circulation, yet essential for it to embody value created through labor. For Marx, commodities under must possess both use value, to meet individual needs, and , abstracted as socially necessary labor time, revealing tensions in production oriented toward profit rather than direct . This duality critiques how capitalist exchange subordinates use value to accumulation, potentially leading to of non-essential goods. The notion of use value remains central to debates in economic theory, influencing analyses of value in non-market contexts like commons-based production, where direct utility prevails over monetized exchange, though largely supplants it with subjective derived from empirical consumer behavior. Empirical studies in extend use value to quantify benefits from natural resources, distinguishing direct consumption from indirect services like support, aiding policy assessments of environmental trade-offs. Despite criticisms that labor-based value theories fail to predict prices accurately—correlating better with supply-demand dynamics than input costs—use value endures as a first-principles lens for dissecting the qualitative foundations of economic .

Historical Development

Ancient and Classical Roots

In , precursors to the concept of use value emerged in treatises on household management (oikonomia), where the utility of goods was tied to their fulfillment of practical human needs rather than abstract exchange. (c. 430–354 BCE), in his , portrayed the value of property and resources—such as farmland, tools, and —as deriving from their effective deployment in production and consumption, emphasizing supervision and skill to extract maximum usefulness from them for self-sufficiency. This approach subordinated monetary considerations to the tangible benefits goods provided in daily life, prefiguring later distinctions by highlighting use as the primary measure of worth over mere holding or . Aristotle (384–322 BCE) systematized these ideas in Politics Book I, distinguishing "natural" acquisition, which aligns goods with their inherent purpose (telos) for direct consumption or household sustenance, from "unnatural" practices like retail trade that prioritize exchange for profit. He posited that every artifact or commodity has a specific use—e.g., a for wearing, not selling—beyond which exchange should only enable acquiring essentials, as 's role is facilitative, not an end in itself. critiqued unlimited wealth-seeking (chrematistike) as perverse, arguing it inverts the proper order where value resides in for (human flourishing), not in proportional exchange ratios that treat dissimilar goods as commensurable via . This framework, rooted in empirical observation of economic activities in poleis like , laid groundwork for viewing use as qualitative and need-based, contrasting with quantitative market valuations. In the broader classical context, these notions influenced Roman adaptations, such as Cicero's (106–43 BCE) echoes in De Officiis of utility in just exchange, but remained subordinate to ethical and political philosophy rather than systematic economics. No earlier Mesopotamian or Egyptian texts explicitly bifurcate use from exchange in philosophical terms, underscoring Greek innovation in causal analysis of value origins.

Contributions from Classical Political Economy

In An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of (1776), introduced the distinction between value in use and value in exchange, defining the former as the of a in satisfying human needs and the latter as its capacity to procure other goods. Smith illustrated this with the that , possessing immense value in use due to its necessity for life, commands little value in exchange owing to its abundance, whereas , with minimal practical , fetch high exchange value from their . This conceptualization positioned value in use as an intrinsic property independent of market relations, serving as a prerequisite for economic exchange without directly determining prices. David advanced this framework in On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817), asserting that —manifested as a commodity's usefulness or capacity to fulfill wants—is a necessary condition for but insufficient to explain its quantitative measure. emphasized that only commodities with positive enter circulation, yet their exchange ratios are governed primarily by embodied labor time, adjusted for production costs like capital and factors. He critiqued Smith's ambiguity on value sources, refining the labor theory to subordinate to objective production conditions while acknowledging subjective elements in demand. Other classical economists, such as , echoed these ideas by treating use value as the qualitative foundation of economic goods, distinct from their quantitative exchange proportions derived from relative scarcities and efforts. Collectively, these contributions established use value as a non-market, utility-based attribute essential for , influencing subsequent theories by highlighting its detachment from mechanisms in early capitalist analysis.

Karl Marx's Formulation

Karl Marx formulated the concept of use value in Capital, Volume I (1867), defining it as the utility of a commodity arising from its capacity to satisfy human wants through its physical properties. This utility exists independently of exchange, realized via direct consumption or use, as "the use values of commodities provide the material for a study of their own, the science of commodities. Use-value realizes itself only in use or in consumption." Unlike abstract notions, use value is concrete, bounded by the commodity's material attributes—such as a coat's warmth or linen's absorbency—and not abstracted from the object itself. In Marx's analysis, every commodity embodies a dual character: it possesses use value, created by concrete, useful labor tailored to specific needs, and value (expressed as exchange value), stemming from abstract human labor. Concrete labor produces the particular utility, varying by type (e.g., weaving for linen versus tailoring for coats), while abstract labor, homogenized across commodities, forms the substance of value indifferent to utility. This duality underscores that use value presupposes exchange in capitalist society, where products must serve both individual needs and market proportions, yet use value itself remains a prerequisite for exchangeability: "As use-values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as exchange-values they are merely different quantities." Marx emphasized that use value is not inherent to labor's expenditure but to the object's properties , critiquing classical economists for conflating with value creation. For instance, destructive labor (e.g., breaking windows) might consume labor but yields no use value if the result lacks . In bourgeois production, commodities' use values are subordinated to exchange imperatives, yet their qualitative diversity enables quantitative value comparisons only through abstraction. This formulation grounds Marx's broader critique of , where production for use is displaced by production for value.

Core Concepts and Definitions

Fundamental Definition of Use Value

Use value constitutes the concrete utility of a , defined by its capacity to satisfy specific human needs or wants through the particular qualities imparted by the labor process that produces it. This utility inheres in the physical attributes of the commodity itself and exists independently of any quantitative relation to other commodities, distinguishing it as a rather than a measure of exchange. For instance, the use value of iron lies in its malleability and durability for tools or machinery, while that of resides in its nutritional content for sustenance; these attributes emerge from the specific, purposeful labor applied— for iron, cultivation for —rather than abstract or homogeneous effort. Commodities possess use value by definition, as their production under exchange presupposes a that can be consumed or utilized to meet requirements, yet this does not require the commodity to embody or abstract labor time. Natural objects, such as air or unexploited , exhibit use value without value, since their derives solely from inherent properties untouched by labor; in contrast, commodified use values result from "useful labor," which transforms raw materials into forms adapted to particular ends. Use values realize their potential only through actual consumption, where the commodity's specific attributes fulfill the consumer's need, underscoring their role as the material basis of irrespective of social form. In Marxist analysis, the diversity of use values reflects the manifold concrete labors in society, each producing distinct utilities that cannot be directly compared or aggregated without mediation through exchange; this qualitative heterogeneity forms the foundation for understanding commodities as dual entities bearing both and value. While classical economists like acknowledged as prerequisite for exchange, Marx emphasized use value's independence from price fluctuations or market proportions, grounding it in the objective properties of things and the intentionality of production. This definition avoids conflating use value with subjective preferences, focusing instead on the tangible satisfactions enabled by the commodity's form and function.

Distinction from Exchange Value

In Karl Marx's analysis, use value constitutes the concrete usefulness of a commodity, derived from its physical properties and capacity to satisfy specific human needs or wants, such as the of or the warming function of a . Exchange value, by contrast, manifests as the abstract, quantitative proportion in which one use value is traded for another, independent of their particular utilities, as in the exchange of 20 yards of for one . This distinction underscores that use value is qualitative and material—realized through direct consumption—while is relational and social, presupposing equivalence among disparate commodities through abstraction from their use properties. Marx emphasized that exchange value requires use value as a prerequisite: "A thing can be a use value without having value," as with air or unowned natural resources, but "nothing can have value without being an object of utility," meaning commodities must possess utility to enter circulation and express value via exchange. Without use value, no commodity exists for exchange; yet in market societies, exchange value dominates, reducing diverse use values to mere bearers of abstract value measured by socially necessary labor time. This abstraction enables commodities to appear comparable despite their heterogeneous qualities, but it also highlights a tension: production for exchange prioritizes quantitative ratios over qualitative utility, potentially leading to overproduction of goods with limited practical usefulness. The duality forms the basis of the commodity's dual character in Capital, where use value represents the "natural form" tied to sensory qualities and labor's concrete application, whereas exchange value embodies the "value-form" as a social hieroglyphic obscuring underlying labor relations. For instance, a table's use value lies in its stability for dining, but its exchange value equates it to other commodities via labor equivalents, indifferent to its specific form unless it affects production costs. This separation, rooted in commodity production, contrasts with pre-capitalist economies where use often directly motivated production without systematic exchange mediation.

Theoretical Role in Economics

Integration with Labor Theory of Value

In Karl Marx's Capital, use value integrates with the (LTV) via the dual character of labor embodied in commodities, where concrete labor produces specific use values while abstract labor constitutes the substance of value underlying . Concrete labor, as the particular form of human activity (e.g., or tailoring), creates the qualitative of a —its capacity to satisfy human needs—independent of exchange considerations. Abstract labor, by contrast, represents homogenized human labor power expended without regard to its specific form, forming the quantitative basis of value measured by socially necessary labor time (SNLT), defined as the average labor time required under normal production conditions with average skill and intensity. This duality enables the LTV to explain as ratios determined by SNLT, abstracted from the heterogeneous of commodities; for instance, a and of equal SNLT exchange despite their differing , as their values equate through shared abstract labor content. remains a prerequisite, as only objects with (produced by labor) qualify as commodities capable of embodying value; without it, no exchange occurs, yet the magnitude of value ignores the specific , focusing solely on labor input. Marx emphasizes that "the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production," rendering value invariant to the commodity's particular use. In the broader LTV framework, this integration underscores labor's role in capitalist production: concrete labor generates the diverse use values essential for social reproduction, while abstract labor, equated across branches via market competition, facilitates value transfer and surplus value creation. Technological advances reducing SNLT (e.g., power looms halving weaving time) alter value magnitudes without affecting the underlying use value's utility, highlighting how LTV prioritizes labor's abstract quantification over qualitative specifics. This structure posits exploitation as rooted in unpaid abstract labor, with use values serving as the material form through which value circulates.

Application to Commodities and Capitalist Production

In Karl Marx's framework, commodities under capitalist production embody use value as their in satisfying human needs or wants, which is a prerequisite for their exchangeability. Without a use value, a product cannot function as a , as potential buyers must perceive some practical benefit to engage in exchange; for instance, linen's use value lies in its capacity to produce , enabling its sale. This qualitative aspect arises from the concrete labor embodied in the , distinguishing it from mere objects devoid of social . Capitalist production, however, systematically subordinates this to the quantitative dimension of value creation, where use value serves primarily as the material substrate for extraction. The production process in generates use values through the dual nature of labor: concrete labor yields specific utilities (e.g., labor produces fabric's wearability), while abstract labor underpins the measured in socially necessary labor time. Capitalists deploy variable capital (wages) and constant capital (machinery and raw materials) to produce , where the use values of inputs are transferred and transformed—raw cotton's fibrous utility becomes incorporated into yarn's spinnability—ultimately culminating in a new commodity with enhanced exchange potential. Yet, the capitalist remains indifferent to the particular form of use value, focusing instead on that can be sold profitably; as Marx notes, the owner of views their use value merely as a for realization. This orientation prevails because capitalist production is not directed at direct consumption but at market-mediated valorization, where emerges from the unpaid labor portion exceeding the worker's reproduction costs. This application reveals inherent tensions in capitalist commodity , as the drive for can mismatch output with societal use requirements, exemplified by of goods that accumulate unsold due to insufficient despite their utility. Marx argues that while use values proliferate under —evident in the historical expansion of industrial outputs from textiles in the to diverse consumer goods—their production is mediated through , inverting priorities where human needs become secondary to profit motives. Consequently, commodities fetishize social relations, appearing as things with inherent properties rather than products of , obscuring the exploitative dynamics of value . Empirical instances, such as the Great Depression's stockpiles of usable automobiles and wheat amid widespread want, illustrate how capitalist imperatives prioritize exchange over use, though Marx's analysis frames this as systemic rather than conjunctural.

Critiques Within Marxist Framework

Internal Contradictions and the Transformation Problem

The transformation problem in Marxist economics refers to the theoretical difficulty of consistently deriving prices of production—market prices that include a uniform rate of profit—from underlying commodity values determined by socially necessary labor time. As articulated by Marx in Capital Volume III, competition among capitals equalizes profit rates across industries despite differences in the organic composition of capital (the ratio of constant to variable capital), causing individual prices to deviate systematically from values; however, Marx's explicit procedure adjusts only the outputs from values to prices while treating input costs (constant capital) as given values, leading to an aggregate inconsistency where the total value of commodities does not equal the total price of production. This methodological choice has been interpreted by some Marxist scholars as an approximation for analytical purposes rather than a formal equilibrium model, yet it generates internal tensions because the deviation logic implies inputs should also be priced at production prices for consistency, disrupting the equality of total surplus value and total profit. Within the Marxist tradition, early attempts to resolve this contradiction, such as Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz's 1906–1907 reformulation using simultaneous linear equations, transformed both inputs and outputs to achieve aggregate invariance (total values equal total prices, equals profit), but this approach introduces circularity by assuming prices determine the values they are meant to derive from, presupposing the very equalized profit rate under scrutiny. Anwar Shaikh, in a 1977 analysis, defended Marx's procedure as an iterative process starting from "direct prices" (proportional to labor values) that converges to true prices of production while preserving systemic aggregates, arguing this reflects the dynamic equalization of profits without altering the total mass of value created by labor. Fred Moseley's 2016 monetary interpretation further contends the problem is illusory under a "single-system" view where input costs are historical money outlays (not requiring revaluation), emphasizing Marx's focus on production over static price equilibrium, thus avoiding the need for dualistic value-price systems. Debates persist among Marxists, with the Temporal Single-System Interpretation (TSSI), advanced by scholars like Andrew Kliman in the 1990s, positing temporal (non-simultaneous) valuation where input values determine output values sequentially, claiming to uphold Marx's aggregates and rate-of-profit tendencies without algebraic fixes; critics within , such as Gary Mongiovi, argue TSSI distorts Marx's aggregates and fails to generate determinate s, reverting to adjustments that undermine the labor theory's for deviations. These unresolved variances highlight internal contradictions, as no interpretation commands consensus: simultaneist models (like Shaikh's or Bortkiewicz's) risk logical circularity, while temporal approaches strain textual fidelity and empirical alignment, particularly since use values—the concrete utilities produced by labor—remain invariant in physical terms but are d in ways that abstract labor magnitudes cannot fully regulate without additional assumptions about circulation and reproduction. noted that such fixes often conflate value as a of production with as a distributional form, but the persistence of the problem underscores a deeper tension between the qualitative role of use value (as the material bearer of value) and the quantitative abstraction required for profit equalization, where deviations can misalign production with social needs under .

Capitalist Indifference to Use Value

In Marxist theory, capitalist production demonstrates indifference to use value because the primary imperative is the accumulation of surplus value through exchange, subordinating the utility of commodities to their role as vehicles for valorization. Karl Marx describes this in Capital, Volume I, Chapter 1, where commodities under capitalism are produced not for the direct satisfaction of producers' needs but as bearers of abstract labor time, convertible into money via market exchange. The capitalist's circuit—M-C-M' (money advanced to purchase commodities, including labor power, to produce more money)—prioritizes quantitative expansion of value over qualitative usefulness, rendering specific use values incidental unless they enable profitable sale. This indifference arises from the social relations of production, where capitalists control the and direct labor toward ends defined by and profitability rather than social utility. Marx argues that in the labor process, the capitalist views the product "only as a value-creating process," disregarding its concrete form or end-use beyond its capacity to embody and realize surplus labor. For example, production decisions favor cost-minimizing techniques that maximize extraction, even if they degrade product quality, longevity, or alignment with broader human needs—such as prioritizing high-margin goods like armaments or non-essential consumer items over durable essentials. Within the Marxist framework, this dynamic fosters contradictions, as the pursuit of can undermine the very use values necessary for sustained of capitalist relations. Overaccumulation may lead to where commodities pile up unsold, despite potential utility, because workers' wages limit to below production levels—a Marx attributes to production oriented toward profit extraction rather than planned use-value fulfillment. Later Marxist analyses, such as those examining technical changes in production, highlight how capitalist indifference to use-value variations (e.g., shifts in product specifications driven by cost-cutting) generates tensions with unavoidable qualitative requirements for usability, exacerbating tendencies toward . Empirical manifestations include historical episodes of wasteful allocation, such as resource diversion to speculative or destructive outputs during booms, where profitability trumps —as seen in 19th-century British industrial of textiles beyond domestic absorption capacity, leading to gluts and depressions. Marxist critiques emphasize that this indifference is not mere oversight but structural, rooted in the form's dominance, where use value serves rather than vice versa, perpetuating alienation and inefficiency inherent to the system.

Challenges from Mainstream Economics

Subjectivity and Marginal Utility Revolution

The marginal revolution in economics, occurring in the 1870s, marked a from objective cost-based theories of value, including the labor theory, to subjective theories grounded in individual assessments. Independently developed by in Grundsätze der Volkswirtschaftslehre (1871), in The Theory of Political Economy (1871), and Léon Walras in Éléments d'économie politique pure (1874), this framework posited that the value of goods arises from their —the additional satisfaction derived from consuming one more unit—rather than from the labor or resources expended in production. This approach resolved longstanding puzzles, such as Adam Smith's diamond-water paradox, where water's greater total yields lower than diamonds due to water's abundance reducing its to near zero, a phenomenon inexplicable under labor-centric views that emphasized aggregate or input costs. In challenging Marxist conceptions of use value, marginal utility theory rejected the notion of value as an inherent, objective property tied to a commodity's concrete usefulness independent of human perception. Karl Marx had defined use value as the capacity of a thing to satisfy human wants in specific ways, serving as a prerequisite for exchange value but distinct from it, with the latter determined by socially necessary labor time. Marginalists countered that use value itself is inherently subjective, varying across individuals and contexts based on personal preferences, scarcity, and marginal increments, rendering objective measures like labor inputs insufficient for explaining market prices or exchange ratios. Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, a key Austrian economist, extended this critique in Karl Marx and the Close of His System (1896), arguing that Marx's labor theory fails to account for the role of consumer demand in imputing value backward through production stages, ignores time preferences in capital goods, and cannot reconcile average labor values with actual prices without ad hoc adjustments. Böhm-Bawerk demonstrated through examples, such as varying productivity of labor in different goods, that equal labor quantities do not yield equal values if marginal utilities differ, undermining the labor theory's causal claim on exchange value and relegating use value to a derivative, subjective phenomenon. This revolution's emphasis on ordinal, subjective preferences over cardinal, objective utilities facilitated the development of general equilibrium models and ordinal utility functions in subsequent neoclassical economics, further eroding the analytical centrality of use value as Marx conceived it. Empirical observations of market behavior, such as price fluctuations driven by changing consumer tastes rather than production costs alone, supported marginalism's predictive power; for instance, luxury goods often command premiums disproportionate to labor inputs due to high marginal utility for status-seeking consumers. While Marxists like Rudolf Hilferding defended the labor theory by claiming marginalism conflates value with price deviations, the marginal framework's integration into mainstream economics—evidenced by its adoption in Walrasian models and empirical demand curve estimations—highlighted systemic flaws in labor-centric explanations, including their inability to incorporate diminishing returns or subjective scarcity without contradiction. Thus, the marginal revolution subordinated use value to individual valuation processes, shifting economic analysis toward demand-side causality and away from productionist determinism.

Empirical Invalidations of Labor-Centric Views

Empirical investigations into the (LTV), which posits that exchange values derive primarily from socially necessary labor time, have consistently revealed significant deviations between predicted labor values and observed market prices. Studies purporting to confirm LTV often employ input-output tables to estimate labor content, substituting monetary input costs or wages as proxies for actual labor hours, which introduces since these proxies are themselves influenced by market prices rather than direct measures of embodied labor. This methodological shortcut undermines claims of empirical validation, as true labor values require non-circular data on production processes, which, when approximated, show correlations that are neither causal nor superior to alternative explanations like supply-demand dynamics. Direct observations further invalidate labor-centric predictions. In commodity markets, such as , prices have exhibited dramatic fluctuations uncorrelated with changes in labor inputs; for example, during the 1973 OPEC embargo, global prices surged from approximately $3 per barrel to $12 per barrel by 1974, driven by supply restrictions rather than alterations in extraction labor time, which remained relatively stable across producers. Similarly, like software or e-books demonstrate near-zero marginal labor costs for replication—often involving automated distribution with negligible human input—yet command positive market prices determined by demand and enforced by rights, contradicting LTV's emphasis on production labor as the value source. Non-produced assets provide additional refutation, as their exchange values arise without labor embodiment. Land rents, for instance, derive from locational and natural attributes rather than invested labor; empirical analyses of urban real estate markets show prices reflecting for proximity to economic centers, with no proportional link to historical labor in site preparation, as evidenced by persistent premiums for undeveloped plots in high- areas independent of development inputs. Joint production processes, common in or , also generate anomalies under LTV, yielding negative labor values for byproducts that nonetheless command positive prices, rendering the theory inconsistent with observed output valuations. These patterns align with mainstream econometric models, where prices track and rather than labor quanta, highlighting LTV's limited in diverse empirical contexts.

Alternative Theories and Modern Perspectives

Neoclassical Utility Maximization

In , utility maximization describes the process by which rational s allocate limited resources to achieve the highest possible level of satisfaction from , with defined as a subjective measure of preference fulfillment. This framework assumes individuals possess complete, transitive, and reflexive preferences over consumption bundles, enabling the representation of these preferences via a function U(x)U(\mathbf{x}), where x\mathbf{x} denotes quantities of . The solves the : maximize U(x)U(\mathbf{x}) subject to the p⋅x≤I\mathbf{p} \cdot \mathbf{x} \leq I, where p\mathbf{p} is the vector and II is . The first-order conditions for this require that the between any two goods equals their relative prices, ∂U/∂xi∂U/∂xj=pipj\frac{\partial U / \partial x_i}{\partial U / \partial x_j} = \frac{p_i}{p_j}, leading to downward-sloping curves derived from diminishing . This marginalist approach, originating in the 1870s with contributions from , , and , shifted value theory from objective production costs—such as labor inputs—to subjective valuations, where a good's worth reflects its incremental contribution to rather than inherent properties. Relative to Marxist use value, which treats a commodity's usefulness as an objective attribute prerequisite for exchange but distinct from labor-derived , neoclassical utility maximization integrates use value directly into subjective , rendering it idiosyncratic to the and independent of social production relations. For instance, the from a good like varies by context and individual need, explaining price fluctuations via and preference intensity rather than uniform labor embodiment. Empirical validation relies on axioms, formalized by in 1938, which test consistency in observed choices without assuming measurability. Critics within economics, including behavioral economists, challenge the rationality assumption, citing experimental evidence of inconsistencies like the (1953), where subjects violate expected utility under risk. Nonetheless, the model underpins and , predicting resource allocation efficiency under , as prices equate marginal utilities across agents via . Extensions incorporate intertemporal choices, with consumers maximizing lifetime over consumption and savings streams, subject to dynamic constraints.

Austrian and Subjective Value Approaches

The , founded by in his 1871 work Principles of Economics, advanced a that locates the origin of economic worth in individuals' personal judgments rather than in objective properties like labor embodied or intrinsic . Menger contended that goods acquire value through their perceived ability to satisfy human needs, with valuation varying by individual circumstances, urgency of wants, and availability of substitutes. This subjectivist foundation posits that value is not a fixed attribute of the itself but an imputation by the valuer, emphasizing : the worth of an additional unit diminishes as supply relative to need increases, resolving classical paradoxes such as the diamond-water puzzle where rarity and subjective priority, not total , drive . In this framework, the Marxist distinction between —as the concrete usefulness of a good—and —as socially necessary labor time—dissolves into a unified subjective appraisal. , to the extent it exists, manifests solely through the individual's ordinal ranking of ends and means; no good holds inherent absent a valuer's desire to employ it in action. Exchange transpires not due to equivalent objective measures but because parties rank the traded items differently in their subjective scales, enabling mutual gain without reference to production costs or abstract labor quanta. Austrian theorists like further refined this by applying to capital goods, where value propagates backward from consumer goods via time preferences and assessments. Ludwig von Mises, building on Menger in Human Action (1949), embedded subjective value within —the study of as purposeful behavior toward valued ends—arguing that all economic stems from actors' anticipations of future satisfactions. This renders objective use value theories, including those privileging labor inputs, incompatible with observed market dynamics, where prices emerge from dispersed, ordinal preferences rather than centralized metrics. Empirical market evidence, such as varying willingness-to-pay across consumers for identical , aligns with this view, as does the failure of to predict actual exchanges absent subjective .

Ongoing Debates and Limited Contemporary Application

In contemporary Marxist scholarship, debates persist over the integration of use value into analyses of advanced capitalism, particularly regarding its role in non-physical commodities like financial derivatives and digital services, where concrete utility is abstracted from material form. has argued that Marx's framework, emphasizing use value as realized in consumption, requires adaptation to account for , yet maintains its analytical primacy over in critiquing . Michael Roberts counters that such adaptations risk diluting Marx's , insisting use value remains tied to socially necessary labor time despite technological disruptions. These exchanges highlight tensions in renewing value theory for 21st-century dynamics, including automation's impact on labor-specific use values. Critiques from heterodox economists like underscore limitations, positing that use value's linkage to falters empirically for durable goods, such as machinery, where and varying utilization rates decouple from labor inputs, rendering the inconsistent with observed formations. In , some proponents revive use value to prioritize human needs over market exchange in models, arguing it counters of natural resources, though this application remains marginal and contested for lacking quantifiable metrics beyond subjective satisfaction. The concept's contemporary application is constrained primarily to niche Marxist and post-Marxist critiques, with scant integration into mainstream policy or empirical modeling, as neoclassical frameworks subsume under ordinal preferences without distinguishing use from exchange binaries. Empirical studies on pricing, spanning 1980–2020, show correlations favoring over labor-derived use values, limiting its predictive in global trade analyses. This relegation stems from the marginalist revolution's displacement of objective use value, evidenced by its absence in standard textbooks and reports post-1870s.

References

  1. https://victorianweb.org/economics/smith8.html
  2. https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1304&context=esi_working_papers
  3. https://stanford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.11126/stanford/9780804758307.001.0001/upso-9780804758307-chapter-7
  4. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800913002218
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7445139/
  7. https://www.exploring-economics.org/media/uploads/2021/10/27/keen-1993-marxs-fallacious-labor-theory-of-value.pdf
  8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381690776_Xenophon_on_Money_and_Its_Right_Use
  9. https://e-revistas.uc3m.es/index.php/FONS/article/download/8344/6691/
  10. https://bigthink.com/thinking/aristotle-telos-money/
  11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3227604
  12. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-aristotles-politics/economy-andprivate-property/64402D7BF78680678EC005BF2F89CC8C
  13. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09599916.2025.2547351
  14. https://www.adamsmithworks.org/speakings/vargas-madrigal-use-and-exchange-value-consumer-surplus-social-welfare
  15. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/anthem-companion-to-david-ricardo/ricardo-and-classical-political-economy/2167F014456DC17ABC011518A31738C7
  16. https://d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/4111/2111-home/value.htm
  17. https://academic.oup.com/book/39886/chapter/340098131
  18. https://www.redalyc.org/journal/601/60157367004/html/
  19. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch16.htm
  20. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch02a.htm
  21. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch01.htm
  22. https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1983/bourgeois-economics/ch02.htm
  23. http://gesd.free.fr/shaikh77.pdf
  24. https://againstthecurrent.org/atc195/review-moseley/
  25. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/048661340203400401
  26. http://gesd.free.fr/kliglo99.pdf
  27. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf
  28. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm
  29. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-1-349-23817-0.pdf
  30. https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1080&context=emancipations
  31. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/ch01.htm
  32. https://faculty.fortlewis.edu/walker_d/econ_307_-_outline_nineteen_-_marginal_revolution_-_menger.htm
  33. https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1939/marginal.htm
  34. https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/completion
  35. https://www.marxists.org/archive/hilferding/1904/criticism/ch03.htm
  36. https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/bitstreams/7c11bde3-a66c-47f9-a0fb-dc4955fe3f0f/download
  37. https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/59840/what-is-the-empirical-evidence-for-or-against-marxs-labour-theory-of-value
  38. https://mises.org/mises-wire/marxisms-fragile-foundation-labor-theory-value
  39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23597084
  40. https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.14.1.0063
  41. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/economics/utility-maximization/
  42. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Economics/Environmental_and_Resource_Economics/An_Interactive_Text_for_Food_and_Agricultural_Marketing_%28Thomsen%29/05%253A_Consumer_Theory_and_Models/5.02%253A_Section_2-
  43. https://economics.ucsd.edu/undergraduate-program/resources/video-handbooks/demo/theory-of-the-consumer/index.html
  44. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/neoclassical.asp
  45. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/economics/neoclassical-economics/
  46. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subjective-theory-of-value.asp
  47. https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/25505/is-utility-in-neoclassical-economics-a-circular-argument-concept
  48. https://openworks.wooster.edu/independentstudy/737/
  49. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/neoclassical-theory
  50. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Economics/Introductory_Comprehensive_Economics/Principles_of_Political_Economy_-_A_Pluralistic_Approach_to_Economic_Theory_3e_%28Saros%29/02%253A_Principles_of_Microeconomic_Theory/06%253A_Theories_of_Utility_Maximization
  51. https://mises.org/online-book/introduction-austrian-economics/4-subjective-theory-value
  52. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Menger.html
  53. https://mises.org/articles-interest/subjective-theory-value
  54. https://www.acton.org/publications/transatlantic/2019/02/25/carl-menger-founder-austrian-economics
  55. https://mises.org/mises-daily/subjective-value-theory
  56. https://mises.org/austrian-school/subjectivism
  57. https://davidharvey.org/2018/03/marxs-refusal-of-the-labour-theory-of-value-by-david-harvey/
  58. https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2018/04/02/marxs-law-of-value-a-debate-between-david-harvey-and-michael-roberts/
  59. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3684719
  60. https://monthlyreview.org/articles/the-multiple-meanings-of-marxs-value-theory/
  61. https://jacobin.com/2025/04/marx-smith-labor-theory-value
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.