/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2200800
>thats not what i implied.
i mean it kind of is, otherwise you would have been able to simply answer the hypothetical

>>2200801
my original statement was that wages come from sales, which is obviously true. now you make it into this obtuse nonsense.
and what hypothetical?

>>2200751
>it loses value, since it is not exchanged for.
how does it lose something it doesnot have?
hmmm

also consider that the labor power does have value, which is why it was paid for, and that value was realized in the exchange for wages. the fact that the capitalist doesn't get to sell the resulting commodity is a separate transaction unrelated to the worker.

>>2200804
>how does it lose something it doesnot have?
hmmm
good point. i phrased it wrong. it never had value.
>also consider that the labor power does have value, which is why it was paid for, and that value was realized in the exchange for wages
i would say that labour-power does not have value until the worker receives a wage.
>the fact that the capitalist doesn't get to sell the resulting commodity is a separate transaction unrelated to the worker.
can you expand on what you mean here?

>>2200818
>phrased
Interesting way to admit you were wrong. First you say one thing and then change you mind. How can anyone trust what you say? Is this intellectual cowardice? Using words correctly is important.

>>2200822
>First you say one thing and then change you mind.
i never changed my mind, i misspoke. know the difference?
>Is this intellectual cowardice?
to admit that i misspoke..?
>Using words correctly is important.
yes, which is why i corrected myself. if only some people here would follow my example.

>>2200825
>misspoke
We are not speaking. If you are I can not hear you over the internet unless you record it and attach an sound file.

>>2200828
hmm. who is being pedantic now?

>>2200829
hmm. is that an admission?

>be marx
>write Capital, literally put it in big thick words under the it CRITIQUE OF POLITICAL ECONOMY
>150 years later retards still think it's an economics book and try to deboooonk it by throwing gotchas at it
Maybe we will never actually achieve socialism

>>2201407
criticizing political economy does not put marx outside of political economy. he spent 20 years reading poltiical economy, studying political economy, and trying to figure out how scientific socialism and political economy would interpenetrate
>deboooonk
not everyone here is trying to do that

>>2201407
>Maybe we will never actually achieve socialism
why do people say this as if the soviet union wasnt already tried and failed?

>>2202576
by "achieve socialism" they mean socialism prevailing over the majority of the earth as the dominant mode of production the way capitalism currently does

i was reading some capital vol. 3 and found this in chapter 37,
>"This is vulgarised still more by those who pass from the general determination of value over to the realisation of the value of a specific commodity. Every commodity can realise its value only in the process of circulation, and whether it realises its value, or to what extent it does so, depends on prevailing market conditions."
this relates to what has been previously discussed, namely, does a "commodity" possess a value before its sale? i then found other examples of marx speaking on this dichotomy of the determination and realisation of value,
>"the quantitative determination of value, namely, the duration of that expenditure, or the quantity of labour … [vol. 1, ch. 1]"
and,
>"The law of the determination of value by labour-time … [vol. 1, ch. 12]"
further,
>"What competition does not show, however, is the determination of value, which dominates the movement of production; and the values that lie beneath the prices of production and that determine them in the last instance. [vol. 3, ch. 12]"
and on the realisation of value,
>"The value of a commodity is, in itself, of no interest to the capitalist. What alone interests him, is the surplus-value that dwells in it, and is realisable by sale [vol. 1, ch. 12]"
and of course, the original discovery,
>"Every commodity can realise its value only in the process of circulation, and whether it realises its value, or to what extent it does so, depends on prevailing market conditions. [vol. 3, ch. 37]"
this reminds me of the "double result" of capital,
>"It is therefore impossible for capital to be produced by circulation, and it is equally impossible for it to originate apart from circulation. It must have its origin both in circulation and yet not in circulation. We have, therefore, got a double result. [vol. 1, ch. 5]"
what we can say then is that a commodity has a determined and realised value, and thus, as per "market conditions", it may only achieve its value in exchange, as marx expressly states in capital vol. 1, chapter 1;
>"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."
it is clear to conclude thus that a commodity's value has a prior determination (its price), but it cannot realise this value if it is not exchanged for. what prevails thus are "market conditions", namely, supply and demand, in valuation. value, is a social, not natural, fact of things, or as marx says here,
>"the value of commodities has a purely social reality […] value can only manifest itself in the social relation of commodity to commodity [vol. 1, ch. 1]"
hopefully this puts the "debate" to rest. a commodity's value has determination in production (its cost), but is only realised in this value by exchange (its sale). therefore, if a 'commodity' is not sold, it has no value, since it serves no use for anybody. this makes "value" a retroactive category, since it realises its determination *after* sale, the same way wages depend on profits;
<"Realisation of the surplus-value necessarily carries with it the refunding of the value that was advanced [vol. 1, ch. 12]"
or as marx otherwise states, labour-power is exploited since it is effectively "rented" as a commodity and so achieves its value after its use, like how workers are paid weekly/monthly, and so are paid after they have already worked. this allows for the mechanism of exploitation, since the total product appears as paid labour,
<"There the property-relation conceals the labour of the slave for himself; here the money-relation conceals the unrequited labour of the wage labourer. [vol. 1, ch. 19]"
wages then depend on a subtraction from profits after sale, since paid labour entails unpaid labour. so, values are retroactive in every sense, as being realised in exchange from prior determinations.
prices precede values, like A precedes not-A.

>>2202621
>"This is vulgarised still more by those who pass from the general determination of value over to the realisation of the value of a specific commodity. Every commodity can realise its value only in the process of circulation, and whether it realises its value, or to what extent it does so, depends on prevailing market conditions."
It says the commodity realises its value. Can this be intended to mean exactly the same as the value becomes real in exchange… but if so saying to what extent it does so seems rather strange. Sounds like some substance that is already there as a potential before the sale that becomes "activated" in the sale. A couple paragraphs earlier he is talking about producing a quantity that is too high.

>"What competition does not show, however, is the determination of value, which dominates the movement of production; and the values that lie beneath the prices of production and that determine them in the last instance. [vol. 3, ch. 12]"
According to Marx, competition does not approximate value ratios in prices as well as it approximates the ratios of prices of production. His reasoning: Capitalists flee from industries with low profits and seek industries with high profits, leveling the profit rates between industries as a tendency. Price ratios close to values would scare away capitalists from investing in high-capital industries, lowering the competition there, thus making the prices in these industries systematically higher relative to industries with low capital investment compared to value ratios.

>"To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another
As was shown earlier ITT the quote is in the big-picture context of corn becoming a commodity historically, not a zoomed-in view of an item sitting on the shelf and then getting sold.

>it is clear to conclude thus that a commodity's value has a prior determination (its price), but it cannot realise this value if it is not exchanged for.
But exchange value isn't value.

>hopefully this puts the "debate" to rest.
Good luck with that :P

>>2202780
>Sounds like some substance that is already there as a potential before the sale that becomes "activated" in the sale.
yes, but this value only gains determination in realisation. the paradox is that a commodity is presupposed as having a use-value and exchange-value, meaning that a commodity is a good that has already been sold, hence marx's preliminary comments,
>"To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use value, by means of an exchange…"
to "become" a commodity he says, which means that a mere "product" which is useless by means of being unsold is not a commodity. this is the same extrapolation he makes earlier in the same paragraph that an object can have a use-value without being a value. so as he plainly says, an unsold product is not a commodity and therefore has no value. a comment you keep omitting, but lets see it again;
>"If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value."
therefore, an unsold product possesses no value.
>competition does not approximate value ratios in prices as well as it approximates the ratios of prices of production
that is presupposed in the notion of value
>As was shown earlier ITT the quote is in the big-picture context of corn becoming a commodity historically
this is pure deception. marx's point is that a product can be given to people without it being a value. he then goes on,
>"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"
this is why to marx, value only exists in commodity-exchange, not social labour as such. there's a big difference, otherwise post-capitalism would inevitably reproduce value formations.
>But exchange value isn't value.
it is the form of appearance of value: the "value form", translated into exchange-ratios, or prices. yet prices can exist without values also, which is why its easier to look at the cost of production. also, i am generalising the logic of value, by showing how a price-form designates the worth of a potential commodity, without itself being achieved. when we see prices, we see what a product *could* be worth if we bought it. this determination is the orientation of value in society, which is why in market dynamics, a cheaper commodity is more often capable of realising value. so to say, prices determine values, since one purchases a commodity for a certain price.

>>2202780
>couple paragraphs earlier
yeah thats why i dont think quote sniping is useful. if you take it out of context you cant tell if hes using value in a technical capacity or just a colloquial version of it. some might consider it careless and others poetic license but i dont think it matters. its not actually difficult to parse people are just searching for gotchas instead of understanding.

>>2202796
if im wrong, then prove me wrong
its very simple

>>2202789
>marx's preliminary comments,
>>"To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use value, by means of an exchange…"
Again: When you look at the quote (it's an addition by Engels btw.) in its context, you will see that the statement is in reference to the historical change of the social embedding of the production of an agricultural product, from feudalism to capitalism. Not the change of an item going from shelf to customer.

>>But exchange value isn't value.
>it is the form of appearance of value: the "value form", translated into exchange-ratios, or prices. yet prices can exist without values also, which is why its easier to look at the cost of production. also, i am generalising the logic of value, by showing how a price-form designates the worth of a potential commodity, without itself being achieved. when we see prices, we see what a product *could* be worth if we bought it. this determination is the orientation of value in society…
An individual can set the price of something he owns at whatever level if he isn't particularly bothered by not being able to sell it. Since that individual can choose arbitrarily, staring at that individual's price-setting antics regarding said item is not something I would call "generalising the logic of value".

>>2202807
i mean i already did multiple times in specific detail but this really goes back to the other thread last month when i told you that he uses the same words at different levels of abstraction to mean different things at different points as he develops the dialectic which is why taking quotes twelve chapters apart and pretending like they contradict doesn't make any sense. and you know this but just saying you think dialectics isn't real isn't a good argument so you keep going back to this quote spamming instead.

anyway, didn't you say that ethics was a potential solution to capitalism? what was it that kant said about ethics?

>>2202818
>it's an addition by Engels btw
yes, and when we look at the footnote we find this explanation by him,
>"I am inserting the parenthesis because its omission has often given rise to the misunderstanding that every product that is consumed by some one other than its producer is considered in Marx a commodity"
this is to show that "social use values" are not commodities in themselves. the entire paragraph is a progressive demonstration of the commodity form. first are natural utilities, then use-values, then social use-values, then commodities (exchange). the common thread then, like in hegel's basic logical system, is to show how the quality of being (use-value) determines quantities (exchange-values) by which they find their measure/unity (the commodity). therefrom in the following section, the commodity undergoes its modes of self-relation in the value form, until equivalence, which is the "universal commodity" of money (ch. 2). in chapter 3, money progresses into world-money, then in 4-6 commodity circulation goes to capital accumulation. this is the progressive structure of marx's work, and it all ties together by the utility of natural wealth.
>you will see that the statement is in reference to the historical change of the social embedding of the production of an agricultural product, from feudalism to capitalism
youre either lying or misunderstanding. the purpose is to show how social use values become commodities in exchange, not by mere distribution. read engels' footnote to get the context.
>is not something I would call "generalising the logic of value"
a commodity can only sell at a certain price, therefore price is not an "arbitrary" factor, but a necessary factor in realising values. prices are regulated by costs of production, so they find determination in wages (prices of labour). this is proven by how markets orient prices around average income in different locations. simple stuff.

>>2202823
>>2202823
>which is why taking quotes twelve chapters apart and pretending like they contradict doesn't make any sense
where do i claim marx contradicts himself you illiterate fool? i am actually just demonstrating marx's internal system to supposed "marxists" and getting heckled for it. all you have are baseless accusations, never any proof of my incorrectness, since you'd just be blaspheming against st. marx himself.
>you keep going back to this quote spamming instead.
its called citation lol. you just make things up without evidence so the concept is alien to you. maybe its just my problematic "empiricism" that keeps me honest against so-called "scientific socialists".
>anyway, didn't you say that ethics was a potential solution to capitalism?
no, my claim was that "capitalism" is unethical, and that this is a popular notion for a reason. inb4 marxoid retards spam about "moralism". idc about your pedestrian nihilism or your dogmatic dialectics. i dont have to be a communist cultist to be an anti-capitalist. that is a faustian pact you construct to posture radicality in place of measured contemplation. most people dont care about your religion and never will. get over it.

>>2203765
Moralist

>>2202818
>When you look at the quote (it's an addition by Engels btw.) in its context, you will see that the statement is in reference to the historical change of the social embedding of the production of an agricultural product, from feudalism to capitalism. Not the change of an item going from shelf to customer.
>>2203762
>youre either lying or misunderstanding.
Who is in the right here? Let's look again (sigh) at the quote you are spamming in context. This is literally the sentence before it:
<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.

>>2203784
>This is literally the sentence before it:
<But neither the quit-rent-corn nor the tithe-corn became commodities by reason of the fact that they had been produced for others.
yes… and?! you are just repeating my point. the corn is a social use value, not yet a commodity, since, as it said,
>"To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use value, by means of an exchange"
it is the mediated exchange which constitutes the act of commodification, since value is abstracted as an exchange-value for the seller as opposed to the use-value for the buyer. your nonsense is to conjecture this as an historical point rather than a basic theoretical point as to the difference between distribution and exchange.

>>2203765
>you keep going back to this quote spamming instead.
<its called citation lol. you just make things up without evidence so the concept is alien to you.
I've been there, buddy. Some people just wanna re-enact the boilerplate and get confused when ya interrupt that.

>>2203765
>my position then does not necessitate freedom, but only ethics.
you are supposed to wait until your previous position gets bump saged off the board before you start changing it lol. you are so bad at this

>>2203802
what has exactly changed in my position?

>>2203765
>am actually just demonstrating marx's internal system to supposed "marxists" and getting heckled for it.
Constantly repeating that price=value is not "marx's internal system". The problem is not that you disagree with Marx its that you disingenuously misrepresent him. If you were presenting Smith as Smith instead of Marx as a mishmash of shit you made up it wouldn't be a big deal.

>>2203807
>>2203807
>Constantly repeating that price=value is not "marx's internal system"
where do i say that to marx, price = value?
once more, you are hallucinating
>The problem is not that you disagree with Marx its that you disingenuously misrepresent him
yet you will never provide evidence of this.
as i say, if im wrong, prove me wrong.

and ultimately the difference between Marx and what you are presenting, as previously stated, is not a difference of epistemology or evidence or philosophy, its a political question related to action. like i said before, if your object of study is different then Marx, like how to efficiently make the most profit, instead of how to free the working class, then obviously Marx's analysis isn't going to be useful. how you choose your focus is not neutral its ideological, and choosing to focus on price is a political decision to endorse bourgeois ideology. if you want to actually overcome capitalism and not just reform it Marx is the conclusive answer.

>>2203809
its all over the entire thread. and im really bad at recognizing anons so if i can see it everyone else can too. your posting is incredibly distinct

>>2203814
>choosing to focus on price is a political decision to endorse bourgeois ideology
you can measure prices. thats what makes them a useful quantity to consider.
>marx is the answer
he's not my answer.
>its all over the entire thread
yet you cannot provide a single example.

>>2203822
>yet you cannot provide a single example.
because you aren't actually looking for an example you want to use it as a hook back into debate. the only thing you have succeeded in doing so far is ruining another thread and forcing people to ignore it out of frustration while creating an echo chamber which at this point seems to be your only objective.

>>2203848
anon just give him an example ffs

>>2203853
no lol. i was engaging with him in good faith for way longer than i should have before i realized he is the nazi apologist from another thread that i also will not link because he is not actually trying to have a conversation but trying to meta game a consensus crack by flooding the board with garbage and exposing his flaws only helps him to correct them. its much better to just let him continue to discredit himself with statements like
>i dont have to be a communist cultist to be an anti-capitalist

>>2203786
>your nonsense is to conjecture this as an historical point
Let's take in a just bit more context:
<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.)
Is it really that far-fetched to look at this section as being about historical change and not one item on a shelf becoming a commodity at the moment it is sold? And it is it really that obvious to you that the product that must transfer by exchange is the individual item and Marx & Engels are not talking about the product in broad strokes as produced for market exchange?

Giving now a truckload of more context:
Capital Volume I is different from Capital III because Capital I (for the most part) assumes counterfactual equal organic composition of capital across industries whereas Capital III does not. This simplification in Capital I works because Capital I is about the big picture and Marx takes the sum of the exchange values with counterfactual equal organic composition across industries to be the same as the sum with factually different organic compositions. Capital I is the introduction for the rest and we are at an early part of Capital I here. Broad strokes.

You make so much of the individual unit of the commodity selling or not. But does Marx? If so, why even make a difference between exchange value and value.

>>2203848
>>2203862
>because you aren't actually looking for an example you want to use it as a hook back into debate.
when you call somebody wrong, are they supposed to just accept it? and if you dont want to debate, stop responding to me.
>no lol
you finally admit that you literally cannot give me an example of me being incorrect despite it "being all over the thread". your deception speaks for itself.
>i realized he is the nazi apologist from another thread
🤣 now i am a nazi? how childish are you willing to be? and you wont give evidence of this either. how pathetic.
>>2203907
>Is it really that far-fetched to look at this section as being about historical change and not one item on a shelf becoming a commodity at the moment it is sold?
you can read it that way if you want, but that doesnt disprove the very basic fact that a commodity's value is realised in exchange. why are you fighting this truism? it is literally written in plain english.
>You make so much of the individual unit of the commodity selling or not
because that is the basis of the economy. value to marx is determined by the general rate of profit (according from organic composition), but as we've already discussed, "market values" are also dependent on "individual values" as marx puts it. the general rate is by definition the mean of individual sales. at some point a product becomes a commodity. you might say this is when a product is made to express its value *as* a commodity, and i dont disagree (since commodity exchange implies use for the buyer and money for the seller). we dont have to disagree if you just accept that it is exchange which realises value in a commodity. after all, can a man profit if he makes no sales?

>>2204356
The difference between precapitalist production and commodity production is that commodities are produced for exchange instead of for use. Something doesn't have to be sold for it to be a commodity, it just has to be made with the expectation of being sold. Its not about the individual product but about the system, its incentives and limitations.

>>2204356
not the anon, I have a question. a commodity is sold several times. First it is sold from the manufacturer to the wholesaler, then from the wholesaler to the retailer, then from the retailer to the consumer. Is it only the last sale that counts?

Also what about when the raw materials are sold to the manufacturer before the commodity is even made? Aren't its constintuent parts (and the labor power which assembles them) sold before the commodity is constructed? So isn't the value getting realized at every stage, incuding before the thing itself is made?

These aren't meant to be gotchas. Just wondering.

>>2204375
>The difference between precapitalist production and commodity production
hold it! commodities to marx are transhistorical, not just capitalist. from the "elementary value form" (barter) to the "money form" of value, commodities are still what are exchanged.
>Something doesn't have to be sold for it to be a commodity
lets read this one more time,
>"To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use value, by means of an exchange"
lets also read the concluding words of chapter 1,
>"the use value of objects is realised without exchange, by means of a direct relation between the objects and man, while, on the other hand, their value is realised only by exchange"
hmm.
>Its not about the individual product but about the system
yes, and all systems of value creation are systems of commodity production and exchange.
>>2204392
>Is it only the last sale that counts?
no, since the value is being continually transferred to different people. what matters is very practical. if i make things and a wholesaler buys them, then i have realised the values of my products - its then up to the wholesaler to circulate that value. put most simply, if money exchanges for commodities, then value is realised. this realisation typically terminates in a final consumption, namely, in the proletariat who are buying back their social product.
>Also what about when the raw materials are sold to the manufacturer before the commodity is even made?
what about them? to marx, raw materials are a form of constant capital, like means of production, therefore its up to the capitalist to use them to produce surplus value.
>isn't the value getting realized at every stage, incuding before the thing itself is made?
yes, if money changes hands. in capitalist society, basically everything is a commodity, so if it is exchanged for, it is presumably realising its value. if i buy screws though, the screws are never sold individually, but their general value is sold in wholesale form (i.e. 100 screws per box). this generalisation of value is also the macroeconomic task of large businesses to make a profit by selling over and under the cost of production by proportion. the "net profits" are considered over individual profits.

>>2204451
>commodities to marx are transhistorical
Nope.
>all systems of value creation
Capitalism is the only system that creates value in the sense that Marx is using it. You are conflating the difference in a way that shows capitalism as natural extension of trade barter, which is ahistorical and unscientific.

>>2204451
Value (as a social relation determined by abstract labor and expressed through generalized commodity exchange) did not exist prior to capitalism. Value, for Marx, is a historically specific category that emerges only when labor is systematically organized for market exchange, commodities dominate social production, and labor is reduced to abstract labor (quantified as socially necessary labor time).

Value as a social relation rooted in abstract labor, commodity production, and profit-driven exchange—is specific to capitalism. Before capitalism, societies had use-values, labor, and sporadic exchange, but not value in Marx’s sense. Recognizing this distinction is key to understanding capitalism’s exploitative core and its historical contingency.

For Marx, commodities are not transhistorical. They emerge under capitalism as products of labor subordinated to exchange-value, governed by abstract labor and profit. While trade and goods existed in prior societies, the commodity-form as a dominant social relation is unique to capitalism. Marx explicitly rejects the notion that commodities are transhistorical. For Marx, the commodity-form—as a product of labor that embodies both use-value and exchange-value—is specific to capitalist society and arises under particular historical conditions.

>>2203786
>it is the mediated exchange which constitutes the act of commodification

For Marx, a commodity is defined by its production for exchange within capitalist social relations. The intention to sell (embedded in the system) establishes its commodity status, while the act of selling realizes its value. The distinction highlights capitalism’s inherent tension between production for profit and the uncertainty of market validation.

Marx’s analysis focuses on systemic logic, not individual acts of exchange. If a commodity remains unsold, it represents a failure of realization (a crisis of overproduction), but it does not retroactively lose its commodity status. Unsold commodities still embody the social relations of capitalism (production for profit) and reflect the contradictions of the system.

A product becomes a commodity the moment it is produced for the market, regardless of whether it is ultimately sold. Its status as a commodity arises from its role in capitalist social relations, where labor is generalized as abstract labor. Thus, the intention (production for exchange) defines it as a commodity, while the sale actualizes its value.

Marx emphasizes that a commodity is produced for exchange, not for the direct use of the producer. This intention is embedded in the social relations of capitalism, where production is organized for market exchange and profit. A commodity is defined by its social purpose within capitalist production relations, not strictly by whether it is successfully sold.

>>2204452
>Nope
wait, so you think commodities didnt exist before capitalism?
>"It therefore follows that the elementary value form [barter] is also the primitive form under which a product of labour appears historically as a commodity, and that the gradual transformation of such products into commodities, proceeds pari passu with the development of the value form. [vol. 1, ch. 1]"
if only you actually read marx…
>Capitalism is the only system that creates value in the sense that Marx is using it
no, to marx, only capitalism produces *surplus-value*, but not value as such.
>capitalism as natural extension of trade barter
that is marx's perspective. read section 3 of capital vol. 1, chapter 1, on the value form. there are 4 value forms to marx;
(A) elementary value form (barter)
(B) expanded value form
(C) general value form (universal equivalent)
(D) money form
this proceeds in a progressive manner. again, read marx for yourself instead of lying to yourself and others.
>>2204456
>Value (as a social relation determined by abstract labor and expressed through generalized commodity exchange) did not exist prior to capitalism.
>For Marx, commodities are not transhistorical
again, what does this quote mean to you?
>"It therefore follows that the elementary value form [barter] is also the primitive form under which a product of labour appears historically as a commodity [vol. 1, ch. 1]"
>>2204464
>Unsold commodities
<"To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use value, by means of an exchange [vol. 1, ch. 1]"
<"All commodities are non-use-values for their owners, and use-values for their non-owners. Consequently, they must all change hands. But this change of hands is what constitutes their exchange, and the latter puts them in relation with each other as values, and realises them as values. [vol. 1, ch. 2]"
notice how i am the one actually directly referencing marx?

>>2204451
>>lets read this one more time,
>"To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use value, by means of an exchange"
Let's read it again, with context, and in the German original this time, because we like to suffer:
<Der mittelalterliche Bauer producirte das Zinskorn für den Feudalherrn, das Zehntkorn für den Pfaffen. Aber weder Zinskorn noch Zehntkorn wurden dadurch Waare, dass sie für andre producirt waren. Um Waare zu werden, muss das Produkt dem andern, dem es als Gebrauchswerth dient, durch den Austausch übertragen werden.
As you can see, "a product" is not the right translation, it's "the product". And the product refers here to the farmer's product in different historical-economical contexts and certainly not one unit of some item.

>>2204456
>Value (as a social relation determined by abstract labor and expressed through generalized commodity exchange) did not exist prior to capitalism. Value, for Marx, is a historically specific category that emerges only when labor is systematically organized for market exchange, commodities dominate social production, and labor is reduced to abstract labor (quantified as socially necessary labor time).
Overstating it. Value becomes dominant in society with capitalism. It doesn't just go from off to TADAAH VALUE DOMINATES. Here is Marx stating in Capital's preface the value-form is very old:
<The value-form, whose fully developed shape is the money-form, is very elementary and simple. Nevertheless, the human mind has for more than 2,000 years sought in vain to get to the bottom of it all
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p1.htm
And that means value predates capitalism. Capitalism is like a pandemic, value is like the virus making the pandemic. The virus of value can persist through small circulation for centuries before capitalism breaks out.

>>2204547
>Value (as a social relation determined by abstract labor and expressed through generalized commodity exchange) did not exist prior to capitalism.
no point in responding if you are just going to ignore it to repeat the same wrong argument

>>2204547
>the product refers here to the farmer's product in different historical-economical contexts and certainly not one unit of some item.
right, so individual commodities are sold as part of total produce. we are not disagreeing. the point still stands however that general rates of profit must be determined by what is sold in particular, since the general rate is made up of individual sales. the general and particular include each other's concept. individual consumption comes from generalised production; i think we find agreement here.
>>2204563
who is wrong here? this is from your original post:
>For Marx, commodities are not transhistorical
>Before capitalism, societies had use-values, labor, and sporadic exchange, but not value in Marx’s sense.
>Marx explicitly rejects the notion that commodities are transhistorical.
yet you have been shown the error of your ways. have some humility.

>>2204568
You already demonstrated your capability to understand context and nuance >>2200829
pretending to be severely autistic is not going to work anymore you need to move on.