Reminder that while the labour theory of value can be practical to understand certain aspects of society, it is still culturally biased and not "objectively" true.

What creates value can only be answered in a cultural framework.

[–] JayDee@lemmy.ml 5 points 11 months ago (4 children)

I'm not following what you specifically mean.

Could you provide an example of when the theory fails due to a culture's differing views of value?

[–] Prunebutt@feddit.de 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

There's not even academical consensus what value actually is, AFAIK. Do preasts add value to anything with their labour? If not: Do social counsellors? What if a priest acts as a counsellor? Ask different economists with their theories of value and you'll get several answers.

Economic theories aren't as rigid as theories from the natural sciences or mathematics. They are dependent on the culture in which they are perceived. A non-capitalist society would have different theories or value (or none at all) than we do.

This guy can explain it properly, I'm not an economist and kinda regret making that comment.

[–] JayDee@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

I actually watch Unlearning Economics, though only his video essays and not his streams. It's been a while since I've seen this one.

So what we're meaning is how much of Western culture undervalues care-giving since it produces no product, so stay at home moms, nannies, therapists, etc.

I thought of another example. In more nomadic and naturalist cultures, actually doing things to the environment destroys value, while leaving it be and allowing it to recover creates value. That is something else that is not accounted for in any theory of value to my knowledge.

An example would be American Indians in their dependance on foraging and hunting. I think that gives creedance to the idea that they thanked the things they harvested/hunted (I don't know the factuality of that), since from their perspective they were only a burden that the ecosystem was 'kind' enough to support.

[–] Prunebutt@feddit.de 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Thank you for that comment. I feel like finally someone understood what I was trying to get across.

Probably formulated it badly, but still: the answers are a bit exhausting.

EDIT: Thought of another example of your qase where harming nature decreases value. Having to buy carbon certificates for releasing CO2 models the destruction of value by polluting the environment.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 1 points 11 months ago

Caregivers may not produce a product but they provide a service.

We have no issues with the plumber providing you a service and getting paid well for it, I don't know why we have such a hard time with caregivers... :(

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (43 replies)