>>6197676>Namely that things have an absolute value and that this absolute value is determined by the amount of labour that went into making themMarx devoted whole chapters to the concepts of unquantifiable use-value and quantifiable exchange-value, his point is that human labour is a commodity with a dual nature, which adds value to the things that are produced. Marx was the first economist/philosopher to make this revolutionary discovery, and the analysis of capitalism is impossible without Marx' distinction.
Of course Marx made two big mistakes.
Firstly he attempted to provide a socioeconomic system together with a set of mathematical equations that explains it... such that the socioeconomic system is a consequence of his set of equations, which is a tautology.
Secondly, like this anon explained
>>6197621 Marx' idea is that human labour AND ONLY human labour adds value to the things that are produced. What is more valuable (use-value for you as a buyer) - an ugly, uncomfortable car that breaks down easily, or a robust, comfortable, beautiful car? Obviously the latter. Marx explains that the exchange-value of the car (sold by the capitalist to you) is the cost of raw materials + cost of transport + worker's labour + surplus for the capitalist. Now the question is - what if not a worker made the car, but automated robots? Robots make cars, but they don't eat, don't have families, don't earn wages. Better, more modern robots make better, more modern, more valuable cars. So automation adds value too, not only human labour. That's where Marx' theory breaks down.
