Economists focus on how prices are determined and at a macro-level how economies are best organised for growth. Marx looks deeper. Two threads structure this chapter: the relationships between (concrete) use-values and (abstract), labour value and market-price exchange-values, including how they conflict and secondly, in the absence of market pricing, the extent to which use-values (products not commodities) can be quantitatively assessed for comparison. Through the lens of knowledge, use-values embed (practical, concrete) knowledge, while exchange-values (as abstractions) embody knowledge, which cannot be altered. Use-values then are the form in which new learning can be embedded as knowledge creating innovation, either as new technology or as new ways-of-working (processes and structures). While use-values never have a market value, expressing commodities in money-form, they are valuable as wealth that solves problems for user: as non-market products they embed valuableness. This valuableness can be measured objectively (cost of production) and subjective (the extent to which in meets user’s valueS in solving problems: values-2-valuable (Vs2V). Both can be quantitatively assessed. However, while money-form exchange-values are universally comparable (mediated by money) use-values are limited to equivalence, i.e. comparability only within a particular context and culture. This might be a community or local state. Outside of this, use-values cannot have a quantitative comparability since subjective valueS may alter. Since use-values are not commodities they cannot have universal equivalence in money-form or the socially necessary labour time at average productivity needed for their creation—which may alter between contexts and cultures. Use-values then may be valuable; they do not have value in Marx’s sense of profit-making for a capitalist presupposing profit in assembling the resources for their production. Non-market use-values are created not by capitalists but by the state, households, third-sector or not-for-profit public-private partnerships, presupposed for consumption. Theoretically confusions are clarified on under-consumption and crisis theory, public-value, and value-destruction by referencing the labour theory of value and in doing so critiquing public choice theory and moral critiques of capitalism. Use-value analysis is used to narrate the unravelling of the Soviet Union and successful growth of China, an important aspect of which is green, sustainable growth, the subject of Chap. 3 .

Values-to-Valuable Metrics

章节
发表日期：

2026年

查看全文

Tony Kinder

摘要

Economists focus on how prices are determined and at a macro-level how economies are best organised for growth. Marx looks deeper. Two threads structure this chapter: the relationships between (concrete) use-values and (abstract), labour value and market-price exchange-values, including how they conflict and secondly, in the absence of market pricing, the extent to which use-values (products not commodities) can be quantitatively assessed for comparison. Through the lens of knowledge, use-values embed (practical, concrete) knowledge, while exchange-values (as abstractions) embody knowledge, which cannot be altered. Use-values then are the form in which new learning can be embedded as knowledge creating innovation, either as new technology or as new ways-of-working (processes and structures). While use-values never have a market value, expressing commodities in money-form, they are valuable as wealth that solves problems for user: as non-market products they embed valuableness. This valuableness can be measured objectively (cost of production) and subjective (the extent to which in meets user’s valueS in solving problems: values-2-valuable (Vs2V). Both can be quantitatively assessed. However, while money-form exchange-values are universally comparable (mediated by money) use-values are limited to equivalence, i.e. comparability only within a particular context and culture. This might be a community or local state. Outside of this, use-values cannot have a quantitative comparability since subjective valueS may alter. Since use-values are not commodities they cannot have universal equivalence in money-form or the socially necessary labour time at average productivity needed for their creation—which may alter between contexts and cultures. Use-values then may be valuable; they do not have value in Marx’s sense of profit-making for a capitalist presupposing profit in assembling the resources for their production. Non-market use-values are created not by capitalists but by the state, households, third-sector or not-for-profit public-private partnerships, presupposed for consumption. Theoretically confusions are clarified on under-consumption and crisis theory, public-value, and value-destruction by referencing the labour theory of value and in doing so critiquing public choice theory and moral critiques of capitalism. Use-value analysis is used to narrate the unravelling of the Soviet Union and successful growth of China, an important aspect of which is green, sustainable growth, the subject of Chap. 3 .