You are aiding social imperialism.

u know what marx means when he describes Price as the exponent of the magnitude of value

U got a chapter or sumn?

"Der Preis ist der Geldname der in der Ware vergegenständlichten Arbeit."

The price is the monetary expression of the labor embedded within a commodity.

"Die Äquivalenz der Ware und des Geldquantums, dessen Name ihr Preis ist, ist daher eine Tautologie, wie ja überhaupt der relative Wertausdruck einer Ware stets der Ausdruck der Äquivalenz zweier Waren ist."

The equivalence of commodity and the money amount, whose name we call price, is a tautology, just like the relative value expression of a commodity is always the expression of an equivalence between two commodities.

"Wenn aber der Preis als Exponent der Wertgröße der Ware Exponent ihres Austauschverhältnisses mit Geld, so folgt nicht umgekehrt, daß der Exponent ihres Austauschverhältnisses mit Geld notwendig der Exponent ihrer Wertgröße ist."

But if the price - as the exponent of the commodity's value quantity - is also the exponent of the commodity's exchange rate with money, then this does not in return mean that the exponent of the commodity's exchange rate with money must be the exponent of its value quantity.

With price, we can measure how valuable a commodity is.

With price, we can measure how the exchange value between a commodity and money is.

But: The exchange value between a commodity and its price are not the same as the value-quantity of a commodity.

Why? Because price is not value, price is only approximated value, distorted value. Value is a long-term concept, while price is a short-term concept. Fluctuations in price are always possible. We cannot use price alone to measure the value of a commodity. Prices can be distorted through marketing for example. Not to mention, prices will rise or sink depending on supply and demand. One premise of the value discussion is an equilibrium between supply and demand.

The price-form is not sufficient to explain value, and it ignores the circulation of commodities, finance capital and other shenanigans. The price-form shows us that there is an alienation between labor and money, that the two are connected but that there is still something amiss between them, which Marx explains in the further chapters.

@Wizzle @Womanpuncher69

it was chapter 3 around page 200 in the penguin classic edition

I got u. I found the Germanoid part above. Marx is easier to understand in German

so price comes from value but then is further changed through marketing, supply and demand etc ? @cloud_rap

Yes, but you just stumbled onto one of the biggest problems in Marxist economics, the transformation problem: How do price and value actually relate? How does price transform into value? Dozens of books have been written on this question for decades and things get more complex once you include the circulation of commodities, finance capital and the alienation of labor. This is where people have legitimate beef and things that I mentioned one page earlier (political implications of value a***ysis) happen. This is really one of the big questions.

Marx uses price, value and the transformation in many different ways:

-> Sometimes the transformation is portrayed as being only a quantitative change, but sometimes also as a qualitative change.

-> Sometimes he suggests the transformation is a change from one form of value to another, at other times that there is a transition from value-form to price form.

-> Sometimes the suggestion is, that a price category fully replaces a value category, at other times both categories always co-exist, and require each other, so that production prices can adjust to product-values but product-values can also adjust to production prices.

-> Sometimes the transformation from value to production price is presented as a logical development, at other times the production price is presented as an irrational expression.

-> Sometimes the production price is presented as an observable category, and at other times as a hidden regulator of market prices.

-> Sometimes the transformation is presented as an historical process, at other times as a logical process, or as a conceptual (or epistemic) transition.

-> Sometimes the sum total of production prices is equated with the sum total of product-values, while at other times it is asserted or implied that these cannot be equal.

All in all, it created confusion. There are a thousand solutions to this.

1. Some say Marx could not solve the transformation problem and therefore disregard the labor theory of value despite calling themselves Marxist (like David Harvey). They find some merit in Marx through other methods, but reject the labor theory of value's existence.

2. Some focus on the money form and price form (like Wertkritiker aka value criticists), this is popular among ultraleftists and the Frankfurt School. I would call it the "circulationist" view. Also popular among some Gonzaloids I believe. If you take this view to its logical conclusion, you can plenty of grounds to criticize any historical socialist state.

3. Some focus on the labor part, this is the view most Marxist-Leninists would take. This can be called the "productionist" view.

4. Some try to find the middle road between circulation and production, this is a newer view and IMO the most attractive one. Some try to do Hegelian voodoo here and talk about the dynamics of the transformation, contradictions etc.

5. Some people reject Marxist economics altogether because of this problem.

6. There are some wacky solutions like the Japanese Marxists that I won't get into now.

This s*** is incredibly complex, I just recommend you to keep reading the book and finish it before breaking your head over this. Basically this question leads to dozens more questions with different political consequences depending on which view is taken.

Value man

Most self-avowed socialists and communists in Germany are Zionists. It is called the Antideutsche movement. They also support the USA. Their beef is with the "anti-imperialists", aka anybody who supports Palestine.

"Down with Germany! Solidarity with Israel!"

"Solidarity with Israel! For communism!"

"Palestine, shut the f*** up!"

"Solidarity with Israel!"

Also whenever people talk about one state or two state solutions, some smug anarcracker will come and say: "Heh, how about that zero state solution..." - except in Germany, where you would get called anti-semitic for that

In our city, some Muslim girls did an information stand for Palestine and BDS, and then the Antifa people came with waving Israel flags and USA flags and ruined the stand, beat the girls up and fled. This is what passes as leftism in Germany.

This is also a major reason why people with migration backgrounds don't want to get involved with the far-left in Germany, since most of the radical left are upper class anarchist crackers with a boner for Israel and the USA

damn y’all had Rosa and Karl to this

what did Canada have Norman Bethune and that’s the end lol

These are usually the same people who push this value criticism stuff I mentioned (Wertkritik), Frankfurt School stuff, have a Rosa Luxemburg fetish.

Most of the value criticism dudes are Jewish + Zionist and actually studied in Frankfurt, like Moishe Postone. This is why I am saying that the way you respond to the value question usually correlates with other views.

One of the great things that maoist bodybuilder gang in Berlin did was violently attack any anti-deutsche they could get their hands on. Anti-deutsche are feds though (literally, they have representatives at the highest level of government and are basically one big Mossad psyop) so the police cracked down on the Maoist gang right after the Anti-deutsche got bullied too much by the maoists

Basically whenever you meet a "leftist" in Germany, you find out that they like USA, the NATO, Israel, never read Marx, vaguely like Luxemburg because she was a woman and "against Lenin", and they have antifa stickers on their backpack or some s***. This is like 99% of the "far left" here.

maoist bodybuilder gang

at least they were doing good work but i think that’s the “left” in most western countries it seems other than the Israel support which seems more unique to Germany

maoist bodybuilder gang is real, u havent heard of them? Legendary fellas and mostly foreign kids not germanoids. Also had ladies amongst them

How tf do they try and justify this as leftism

i mean how far off is this from the avg self identified leftist elsewhere in the west lets be honest

You’re just hanging with the wrong Germans

LONG LIVE THE ETERNAL LIGHT OF THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN GONZALO

you being able to read Marx in German gotta be like me being able to read Lenin in Russian: an absolute delight

Lenin's Russian pen is super goated if only yall knew

Lenin is a better writer than Marx definitely. Wish I could understand the fella too

I read his anti-Kautsky s*** with Ether beat constantly playing in my head