I come to this channel as an anarchist because your historical analysis is so on point and clearly you have read marx more than most anarchists socialists or communists have.
Not trying to comment spam your vids or anything, but like dude, these are SO good. I'm a socialist educator myself (like, I literally run my org's reading group), so I find myself disappointed in a lot of the socialism vids on UA-cam. Second Thought is like super 101 stuff, which is good, but obviously not what I'm looking for. The rest are either just political history channels, or just socialist channels that release content about culture war garbage. Good, simple, educational videos are very rare on this side of UA-cam for some reason (probably the UA-cam algorithm's incentive structure)
I know very little (so far) about marginal utility but I'm delighted to learn that its supporters have to resort to such a moronic idea as a chance find to attack Marx's critique of a system. So thanks very much for that, and for the rest of your presentation. A minor point though - the value of a commodity (say a brick) is determined by the socially necessary labour time required to reproduce it, not the socially necessary labour time to produce it. This slight difference allows us to understand why existing bricks will fall in value when a more efficient brick production method becomes generally available.
Very well-explained. I would appreciate it if you could further develop the differences between Marx's and Ricardo's value theories, as they might seem similar
The LTV dominates price movements with reductions or increases in required labour-time making prices of production rise or fall. But Sraffa pointed out that relative prices can be decided without going through the intermediary of value, this has posed a debate in economics which has been somewhat neglected or simply lacked touch in my opinion.
Wait what no this is not true. You will learn this in introductory microeconomics, labor is essentially a market good (like anything else), changes in labor value are always calculated, its laughable to think that firms don’t calculate this, its one of the largest factors that influence not only the supply but also the demand of a good lol (since changed in labor can affect things like peoples free time and hence the demand for consumer goods for example). Saying that this is neglected in economics is laughably untrue lol, I struggled way too much in econ on these types of problems for you to say that.
Also on your point on exchanging without intermediary valuation. The exchange is the valuation lol. If the exchange did not happen then there is a misevaluation. For example if I exchange a goat for a cow, then the price of a goat can be given as one cow, in economics, especially most economics you learn in school, you will notice that price is not given as a currency denomination, but rather as an exchange between two goods.
@@phazemaster2385 So the law of value dominates price movements with reductions or increases in labour-time, making prices of production rise or fall. It is in this sense that Ricardo (who doubtlessly realized that his prices of production deviated value of commodities) says that "the inquiry to which I wish to draw the reader's attention relates to the effect of the variations in the relative value of commodities, and not in their absolute value." So yeah.
@@jackjak392 you mean reductions and increases in labor-value? Labor-value would (poorly) explain variations, I’m assuming labor-time to produce a commodity is constant unless there are advancements or regressions in manufacturing processes?
You bring up the point of Marx critiquing LTV, which is good. It should be noted that Capital was not Marx making an argument in favor of LTV, but was saying "let's flesh out these ideas, assuming it's correct, and look at where they lead." Marx was not a proponent of LTV, but was a critic as you said, yet a lot of people who think they know Marx (including/especially Marxists, probably because of all the anti-Marxists pointing at LTV and saying "Marx was wrong" turning into defenses of what Marx wrote about LTV turning into defenses of LTV). There is no text where Marx actually argues that LTV is correct, or in any way advocates for it. You can read some of the justification for this position in David Harvey's article “Marx’s Refusal of the Labour Theory of Value.” Good video explaining what Marx said about it, and again, thanks for pointing out that he was a critic, not a proponent.
Hi Sam! Thanks for sharing this info. I went and read that piece, and some similar pieces of "Limits to Capital," and still can't really understand how Marx doesn't endorse a modified version of the LTV. It seems to me like Harvey just wants to acknowledge that Marx modified the inputs to make them less static and more dynamic, but the theory is still about labor generating the value around which prices bevy. Could you please direct me to more reading? I might be missing something. Thank you!
@@lucasballestin9085 I've only heard rumors about him adopting aspects of LTV, but as far as I know he never developed a full theory of his own. At least none that he explicitly advocated for and I've heard was developed in any book or other document. Rather than trying to build a theory, I think Marx focused more on describing the conditions of capitalism in their historical context (relative to other modes of production). Using labor as the underlying value-creator makes the most sense when you look at historical economic systems, particularly if we're talking about a world where all commodities aren't produced from speculation. It's clear that Marx felt similarly, but the details about exactly what he thought are not so clear. Plenty of speculation that can be drawn from this or that document, but I haven't heard of anything concrete. Then again I haven't read everything he wrote and am not a great analyst. That said, Marx wrote "Value, Price and Profit," which pretty well explains his thinking on things. No real "theory," but one could probably piece together a theory of value from it. VPP was Marx's response to someone else about arguments you still hear capitalists push today. Marx took ideas from volume 1 of Capital (before he actually published) to make the arguments, but they still amount to explaining the arguments capitalists make to justify capitalism, and then fact-checking them with reality in order to prove that they're wrong. He does explain value and surplus value, but not as a theory so much as an observation.
@@samuelrosander1048 Thank you so much! I was actually thinking of those two texts, ch 1 of capital and VPP. Not sure how you're distinguishing between a theory and a series of observations, but in those texts it feels clear to me that Marx is indeed endorsing the LTV. Also given that it serves as a basis for his theory about the falling rate of profit etc later on.. etc. I appreciate the thoughtful response!
@@lucasballestin9085Generally, a theory is an explanation for the observed phenomena. Regarding economics, the theory would explain the observations of economic relationships. Marx's notion of surplus value is a categorization of value separating what the worker is paid versus the remainder of what they produced. It's both an observation of a relationship and an attempt at explaining the dynamics of the relationship. Without further and more explicit explanations of "how/why" it is not really a theory, but serves as the basis for possible theories. Like I said, it's mostly just observations and historical context, and it's mostly about discrediting capitalist ideas of how/why by slapping them with reality. Capitalists have always been dishonest in explaining and portraying their system, and their explanations try to mask it with fake "common sense" and various equations that aren't actually useful (interesting, as Yanis Varoufakis said one of his professors responded when asked about them, but not useful). It's systemetized greed, and it's really awkward for them to just come out and admit that they're not really that different from feudal lords vying for dominance out of pure self-interest with maybe some nationalism thrown in, "but you should still think this is the best system we can do because it makes some of us a lot of money...and don't you want to have your chance to be one of the few?" Regarding Capital, from what I understand all three volumes were meant to critique different aspects of capitalism by first "steel man" presenting their own arguments (the opposite of the "straw man," basically showing that he actually understands them), and accepting all/most of their claims about them as true, before applying reality to them and watching them crumble. Volume 1 was supposed to cover one part, volume 2 another, and and volume 3 a third. Obviously he didn't really complete volume 2 before he died, and volume 3 was Engels just compiling the rest of his stuff into a book and adding it to the series. With that understanding of what the intent was behind the books, though, I can't say that he was endorsing LTV, but was instead explaining it before showing its flaws. That said, I haven't read all of volume 1. His writing style is hard for me to follow, so I gave up at some point and have had to rely on people who had the patience and far better skills of analysis...and I can't even remember most of it, largely because it's just not that important. Weird as it sounds, Capital was not his most important work, just his most well-known. It was a critique of capitalism, not an advocacy for a specific theory for a socialist movement to subscribe to. Marx was great at critiquing capitalism, but the kind of socialist movement and system he subscribed to (from reading his works, individually in their entirety and without twisting meanings to suit a statist narrative) was one that rejected the capitalist model (almost) entirely in favor of democratization; democratization would not fit into the model he wrote about because it was a capitalist model. Most of my focus on Marx is trying to piece together his ideas for the transition away from capitalism, and the next steps towards the "stateless, classless, moneyeless society" people talk about. For that you have to dive into other stuff he wrote. Far more useful stuff that we can translate to actionable ideas or the bases for mass movements, like "Conspectus of Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy," "Critique of the Gotha Programme" (I can't find the original draft that he was critiquing, sadly), "The Nationalisation of the Land" and others. Of course, if you're really intent on trying to understand his theory of value or what he endorsed, that's fine. GL either way.
Trust me, there’s a lot of things that debunk AnCaps way before you get to LTV. For example, their silly attitude regarding the state. For example, who is going to save capitalism from its regular crises? Who’s going to reinforce the power of capital over other classes? Who is going to make sure that infrastructure actually exists for the capitalists to use? Even amongst the capitalists, it is generally agreed that some form of state/government is needed. AnCaps are people trying to come up with helpful ideas for their own ruling class, and that ruling class doesn’t actually care about those ideas very much.
There is on such thing as equal exchange. Exchange only occurs when parties place grater value on one object over another. There is no magnitude of value. 10 pens may only exchange for 1 bible once ever, because the subjective value of the exchange was unique. Value is subjective and ordinal. This was the discovery of the marginal revolution. Menger solved the diamond paradox.
Value has an objective basis in socially necessary labour time. There is no “subjective value” without the objective value produced by labour. This is a basic point.
You are objectively incorrect. The ironic property of marginalists is that they look at marginal cases like these which are irrelevant in the greater picture. Maybe because they are just making up ideas for their ruling class and are detached from the actual material reality production?
Supply and demand are essentially a regulating force, an adjustment of the value of a commodity for the market. The price is frankly the projection of the value measured in money adjusted to the supply and demand on the market. Thats how Marx explains it in "Value, Price and Profit" and even quotes Adam Smith.
Great Video. I hope we see more from you in the future. I'm just a bit concered that the steep price on your patreon will inhibit your growth (Something Marx Economic Theory doesn't account for :D )
I'm really confused by your comment. I'm probally really stupid but I don't get where profit comes into the picture Pateon has nothing to do with profit and my hole (wider) agument is that no economic theory can sufficantly capture real practical economic movement
@SoyBoyEconomics Oh yes, I'm aware that the LTV covers more than just the "exploitation" of labor. However, labor isn't "exploited" (in the Marxian sense of not being paid the full reward for its input).
@@lochnessmunster1189 so where do profits come from? An arbitrary rise in price of a product for no reason? In what way does this reaffirm your belief in capitalism? Moreover, how can you argue profits aren’t derived from wages when real wages have stagnated and profits have gone up? I understand monopoly price and inflation boost prices artificially and that supply/demand determine prices in a market, but if supply and demand are equal, how is a price derived?
Of course air has utility. The marginalists would say it has no economic value because it is abundant and does not require exchange in order to command its utility. In space, like the space station, or under water like diving, air takes on an economic value because it is not abundant and must be conserved in order to command its utility. Some trade off must take place in order to command it in abundant enough quantities.
@@miker2157 The point was just to show the difference between Marx and the marginalists' use of utility. For further elaboration. -Marx says that air has utility *but* no price, therefore price does not come from utility. -The marginalists say that air has no marginal utility, *therefore* no price. In this way, the marginalists found a connection between utility, by placing it at a margin, and price.
Im curious, any Marxist please feel free to jump in and explain this to me. For a plot of land that has never been worked before, lets say an island, which has a value and whose value changes over time. Clearly its value is not a function of labor, nor the hypothetical labor required to till the land since its value fluctuates. It seems to me though that supply and demand solves about every valuation discrepancy that exists on the basis of the utility of a product, no?
Marx says Nature is the mother of value and labour is the father. Nature prefurnishes use values (like land) but labour is needed to furnish them to fit our needs. Unlike land, most commodities require labor to produce.
@@redpen1917 Yea but nature is also a commodity, no? How do we assign it value, same for all other prefurnished use values, it seems like these are exchanged (with or without valuation).
@@phazemaster2385 land isn’t automatically a commodity, it only becomes a commodity when jt is bought and sold on the market. In that case every piece of land is valued in relation to all other commodities, which themselves have their value determined by socially necessary labour time.
@@redpen1917 yes but it does have a value though, one which is loosely related to its commodity price. For example I can trade a plot of land with my neighbor Bill for something which is a commodity and requires labor. In that case I’m curious why its pre valuation exchange value fluctuates, is it not just supply and demand?
I take your point. The exchange-value of land is not necessarily produced through labour. But it’s value stands in relation to the value of commodities which are produced through labour. That’s how Bill would know how much he “demands” your land. He would know a good deal from a bad deal based on how much labour he would need to carry out (value production) to pay for it. In this way the value of land is calculated in terms if SNLT.
The "fed up with people who bash Marx and use his name as a pejorative but have never read Marx" button
Odd argument. Can't the same be said of Hitler for those who haven't read Mein Kampf? Isn't it about outcomes rather than theory?
I come to this channel as an anarchist because your historical analysis is so on point and clearly you have read marx more than most anarchists socialists or communists have.
This channel is ridiculously elite. Thanks for the good work 💯
Shoutout to ItsLeninTime
Not trying to comment spam your vids or anything, but like dude, these are SO good. I'm a socialist educator myself (like, I literally run my org's reading group), so I find myself disappointed in a lot of the socialism vids on UA-cam. Second Thought is like super 101 stuff, which is good, but obviously not what I'm looking for. The rest are either just political history channels, or just socialist channels that release content about culture war garbage. Good, simple, educational videos are very rare on this side of UA-cam for some reason (probably the UA-cam algorithm's incentive structure)
Thanks so much. These videos are made with ppl like you in mind, and for the exact reasons you elaborated.
Nicely done. I’ll be back.
I know very little (so far) about marginal utility but I'm delighted to learn that its supporters have to resort to such a moronic idea as a chance find to attack Marx's critique of a system. So thanks very much for that, and for the rest of your presentation. A minor point though - the value of a commodity (say a brick) is determined by the socially necessary labour time required to reproduce it, not the socially necessary labour time to produce it. This slight difference allows us to understand why existing bricks will fall in value when a more efficient brick production method becomes generally available.
Best channel ❤
Very well-explained. I would appreciate it if you could further develop the differences between Marx's and Ricardo's value theories, as they might seem similar
The LTV dominates price movements with reductions or increases in required labour-time making prices of production rise or fall. But Sraffa pointed out that relative prices can be decided without going through the intermediary of value, this has posed a debate in economics which has been somewhat neglected or simply lacked touch in my opinion.
Wait what no this is not true. You will learn this in introductory microeconomics, labor is essentially a market good (like anything else), changes in labor value are always calculated, its laughable to think that firms don’t calculate this, its one of the largest factors that influence not only the supply but also the demand of a good lol (since changed in labor can affect things like peoples free time and hence the demand for consumer goods for example). Saying that this is neglected in economics is laughably untrue lol, I struggled way too much in econ on these types of problems for you to say that.
Also on your point on exchanging without intermediary valuation. The exchange is the valuation lol. If the exchange did not happen then there is a misevaluation. For example if I exchange a goat for a cow, then the price of a goat can be given as one cow, in economics, especially most economics you learn in school, you will notice that price is not given as a currency denomination, but rather as an exchange between two goods.
@@phazemaster2385 By LTV dominating price movements I was referring more or so to the law of value, and yes it is true.
@@phazemaster2385 So the law of value dominates price movements with reductions or increases in labour-time, making prices of production rise or fall. It is in this sense that Ricardo (who doubtlessly realized that his prices of production deviated value of commodities) says that "the inquiry to which I wish to draw the reader's attention relates to the effect of the variations in the relative value of commodities, and not in their absolute value." So yeah.
@@jackjak392 you mean reductions and increases in labor-value? Labor-value would (poorly) explain variations, I’m assuming labor-time to produce a commodity is constant unless there are advancements or regressions in manufacturing processes?
You bring up the point of Marx critiquing LTV, which is good. It should be noted that Capital was not Marx making an argument in favor of LTV, but was saying "let's flesh out these ideas, assuming it's correct, and look at where they lead." Marx was not a proponent of LTV, but was a critic as you said, yet a lot of people who think they know Marx (including/especially Marxists, probably because of all the anti-Marxists pointing at LTV and saying "Marx was wrong" turning into defenses of what Marx wrote about LTV turning into defenses of LTV). There is no text where Marx actually argues that LTV is correct, or in any way advocates for it. You can read some of the justification for this position in David Harvey's article “Marx’s Refusal of the Labour Theory of Value.”
Good video explaining what Marx said about it, and again, thanks for pointing out that he was a critic, not a proponent.
Hi Sam! Thanks for sharing this info. I went and read that piece, and some similar pieces of "Limits to Capital," and still can't really understand how Marx doesn't endorse a modified version of the LTV. It seems to me like Harvey just wants to acknowledge that Marx modified the inputs to make them less static and more dynamic, but the theory is still about labor generating the value around which prices bevy. Could you please direct me to more reading? I might be missing something. Thank you!
@@lucasballestin9085 I've only heard rumors about him adopting aspects of LTV, but as far as I know he never developed a full theory of his own. At least none that he explicitly advocated for and I've heard was developed in any book or other document. Rather than trying to build a theory, I think Marx focused more on describing the conditions of capitalism in their historical context (relative to other modes of production). Using labor as the underlying value-creator makes the most sense when you look at historical economic systems, particularly if we're talking about a world where all commodities aren't produced from speculation.
It's clear that Marx felt similarly, but the details about exactly what he thought are not so clear. Plenty of speculation that can be drawn from this or that document, but I haven't heard of anything concrete. Then again I haven't read everything he wrote and am not a great analyst. That said, Marx wrote "Value, Price and Profit," which pretty well explains his thinking on things. No real "theory," but one could probably piece together a theory of value from it. VPP was Marx's response to someone else about arguments you still hear capitalists push today. Marx took ideas from volume 1 of Capital (before he actually published) to make the arguments, but they still amount to explaining the arguments capitalists make to justify capitalism, and then fact-checking them with reality in order to prove that they're wrong. He does explain value and surplus value, but not as a theory so much as an observation.
@@samuelrosander1048 Thank you so much! I was actually thinking of those two texts, ch 1 of capital and VPP. Not sure how you're distinguishing between a theory and a series of observations, but in those texts it feels clear to me that Marx is indeed endorsing the LTV. Also given that it serves as a basis for his theory about the falling rate of profit etc later on.. etc. I appreciate the thoughtful response!
@@lucasballestin9085Generally, a theory is an explanation for the observed phenomena. Regarding economics, the theory would explain the observations of economic relationships. Marx's notion of surplus value is a categorization of value separating what the worker is paid versus the remainder of what they produced. It's both an observation of a relationship and an attempt at explaining the dynamics of the relationship. Without further and more explicit explanations of "how/why" it is not really a theory, but serves as the basis for possible theories. Like I said, it's mostly just observations and historical context, and it's mostly about discrediting capitalist ideas of how/why by slapping them with reality. Capitalists have always been dishonest in explaining and portraying their system, and their explanations try to mask it with fake "common sense" and various equations that aren't actually useful (interesting, as Yanis Varoufakis said one of his professors responded when asked about them, but not useful). It's systemetized greed, and it's really awkward for them to just come out and admit that they're not really that different from feudal lords vying for dominance out of pure self-interest with maybe some nationalism thrown in, "but you should still think this is the best system we can do because it makes some of us a lot of money...and don't you want to have your chance to be one of the few?"
Regarding Capital, from what I understand all three volumes were meant to critique different aspects of capitalism by first "steel man" presenting their own arguments (the opposite of the "straw man," basically showing that he actually understands them), and accepting all/most of their claims about them as true, before applying reality to them and watching them crumble. Volume 1 was supposed to cover one part, volume 2 another, and and volume 3 a third. Obviously he didn't really complete volume 2 before he died, and volume 3 was Engels just compiling the rest of his stuff into a book and adding it to the series. With that understanding of what the intent was behind the books, though, I can't say that he was endorsing LTV, but was instead explaining it before showing its flaws.
That said, I haven't read all of volume 1. His writing style is hard for me to follow, so I gave up at some point and have had to rely on people who had the patience and far better skills of analysis...and I can't even remember most of it, largely because it's just not that important. Weird as it sounds, Capital was not his most important work, just his most well-known. It was a critique of capitalism, not an advocacy for a specific theory for a socialist movement to subscribe to. Marx was great at critiquing capitalism, but the kind of socialist movement and system he subscribed to (from reading his works, individually in their entirety and without twisting meanings to suit a statist narrative) was one that rejected the capitalist model (almost) entirely in favor of democratization; democratization would not fit into the model he wrote about because it was a capitalist model. Most of my focus on Marx is trying to piece together his ideas for the transition away from capitalism, and the next steps towards the "stateless, classless, moneyeless society" people talk about. For that you have to dive into other stuff he wrote. Far more useful stuff that we can translate to actionable ideas or the bases for mass movements, like "Conspectus of Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy," "Critique of the Gotha Programme" (I can't find the original draft that he was critiquing, sadly), "The Nationalisation of the Land" and others.
Of course, if you're really intent on trying to understand his theory of value or what he endorsed, that's fine. GL either way.
Economic theory so bad that even Marx didn't like it.
now i can debunk ancaps
Trust me, there’s a lot of things that debunk AnCaps way before you get to LTV. For example, their silly attitude regarding the state.
For example, who is going to save capitalism from its regular crises? Who’s going to reinforce the power of capital over other classes? Who is going to make sure that infrastructure actually exists for the capitalists to use?
Even amongst the capitalists, it is generally agreed that some form of state/government is needed. AnCaps are people trying to come up with helpful ideas for their own ruling class, and that ruling class doesn’t actually care about those ideas very much.
There is on such thing as equal exchange. Exchange only occurs when parties place grater value on one object over another. There is no magnitude of value. 10 pens may only exchange for 1 bible once ever, because the subjective value of the exchange was unique. Value is subjective and ordinal. This was the discovery of the marginal revolution. Menger solved the diamond paradox.
Value has an objective basis in socially necessary labour time. There is no “subjective value” without the objective value produced by labour. This is a basic point.
You are objectively incorrect. The ironic property of marginalists is that they look at marginal cases like these which are irrelevant in the greater picture. Maybe because they are just making up ideas for their ruling class and are detached from the actual material reality production?
So Marx says that exchange value should be set by the labour time required. Not by supply/demand.
Correct. But supply and demand is related to Marx’s value theory.
Supply and demand are partially created by labour time
Supply and demand are essentially a regulating force, an adjustment of the value of a commodity for the market. The price is frankly the projection of the value measured in money adjusted to the supply and demand on the market. Thats how Marx explains it in "Value, Price and Profit" and even quotes Adam Smith.
an epic battle to discover who got it more wrong
Any thoughts on who got it right?
Great Video. I hope we see more from you in the future. I'm just a bit concered that the steep price on your patreon will inhibit your growth (Something Marx Economic Theory doesn't account for :D )
There is no "labour theory of value". This is a misunderstanding of where profit comes from.
I'm really confused by your comment. I'm probally really stupid but I don't get where profit comes into the picture Pateon has nothing to do with profit and my hole (wider) agument is that no economic theory can sufficantly capture real practical economic movement
@@moejoe5269 Well, I was pointing out that Marx's theory- that profit is made by underpaying labor its actual value- isn't true.
@SoyBoyEconomics Oh yes, I'm aware that the LTV covers more than just the "exploitation" of labor. However, labor isn't "exploited" (in the Marxian sense of not being paid the full reward for its input).
@@lochnessmunster1189 so where do profits come from? An arbitrary rise in price of a product for no reason? In what way does this reaffirm your belief in capitalism? Moreover, how can you argue profits aren’t derived from wages when real wages have stagnated and profits have gone up? I understand monopoly price and inflation boost prices artificially and that supply/demand determine prices in a market, but if supply and demand are equal, how is a price derived?
Marx says that air has utility.
The marginalists say that air has no marginal utility.
Of course air has utility. The marginalists would say it has no economic value because it is abundant and does not require exchange in order to command its utility. In space, like the space station, or under water like diving, air takes on an economic value because it is not abundant and must be conserved in order to command its utility. Some trade off must take place in order to command it in abundant enough quantities.
@@miker2157 The point was just to show the difference between Marx and the marginalists' use of utility. For further elaboration.
-Marx says that air has utility *but* no price, therefore price does not come from utility.
-The marginalists say that air has no marginal utility, *therefore* no price.
In this way, the marginalists found a connection between utility, by placing it at a margin, and price.
Im curious, any Marxist please feel free to jump in and explain this to me. For a plot of land that has never been worked before, lets say an island, which has a value and whose value changes over time. Clearly its value is not a function of labor, nor the hypothetical labor required to till the land since its value fluctuates. It seems to me though that supply and demand solves about every valuation discrepancy that exists on the basis of the utility of a product, no?
Marx says Nature is the mother of value and labour is the father. Nature prefurnishes use values (like land) but labour is needed to furnish them to fit our needs. Unlike land, most commodities require labor to produce.
@@redpen1917 Yea but nature is also a commodity, no? How do we assign it value, same for all other prefurnished use values, it seems like these are exchanged (with or without valuation).
@@phazemaster2385 land isn’t automatically a commodity, it only becomes a commodity when jt is bought and sold on the market. In that case every piece of land is valued in relation to all other commodities, which themselves have their value determined by socially necessary labour time.
@@redpen1917 yes but it does have a value though, one which is loosely related to its commodity price. For example I can trade a plot of land with my neighbor Bill for something which is a commodity and requires labor. In that case I’m curious why its pre valuation exchange value fluctuates, is it not just supply and demand?
I take your point. The exchange-value of land is not necessarily produced through labour. But it’s value stands in relation to the value of commodities which are produced through labour. That’s how Bill would know how much he “demands” your land. He would know a good deal from a bad deal based on how much labour he would need to carry out (value production) to pay for it. In this way the value of land is calculated in terms if SNLT.