23
posted ago by Watch_TheKarma_Burn ago by Watch_TheKarma_Burn +23 / -0

Mr. Dubois had said, "Of course, the Marxian definition of value is ridiculous. All the work one cares to add will not turn a mud pie into an apple tart; it remains a mud pie, value zero. By corollary, unskillful work can easily subtract value; an untalented cook can turn wholesome dough and fresh green apples, valuable already, into an inedible mess, value zero. Conversely, a great chef can fashion of those same materials a confection of greater value than a commonplace apple tart, with no more effort than an ordinary cook uses to prepare an ordinary sweet.

"These kitchen illustrations demolish the Marxian theory of value — the fallacy from which the entire magnificent fraud of communism derives — and to illustrate the truth of the common-sense definition as measured in terms of use."

Dubois had waved his stump at us. "Nevertheless — wake up, back there! — nevertheless the disheveled old mystic of Das Kapital , turgid, tortured, confused, and neurotic, unscientific, illogical, this pompous fraud Karl Marx, nevertheless had a glimmering of a very important truth. If he had possessed an analytical mind, he might have formulated the first adequate definition of value... and this planet might have been saved endless grief.

"Or might not," he added. "You!"

I had sat up with a jerk.

"If you can’t listen, perhaps you can tell the class whether ‘value’ is a relative, or an absolute?"

I had been listening; I just didn’t see any reason not to listen with eyes closed and spine relaxed. But his question caught me out; I hadn’t read that day’s assignment. "An absolute," I answered, guessing.

"Wrong," he said coldly. " ‘Value’ has no meaning other than in relation to living beings. The value of a thing is always relative to a particular person, is completely personal and different in quantity for each Living human — ‘market value’ is a fiction, merely a rough guess at the average of personal values, all of which must be quantitatively different or trade would be impossible." (I had wondered what Father would have said if he had heard "market value" called a "fiction" — snort in disgust, probably.)

"This very personal relationship, ‘value,’ has two factors for a human being: first, what he can do with a thing, its use to him... and second, what he must do to get it, its cost to him. There is an old song which asserts that ‘the best things in life are free.’ Not true! Utterly false! This was the tragic fallacy which brought on the decadence and collapse of the democracies of the twentieth century; those noble experiments failed because the people had been led to believe that they could simply vote for whatever they wanted... and get it, without toil, without sweat, without tears.

"Nothing of value is free. Even the breath of life is purchased at birth only through gasping effort and pain." He had been still looking at me and added, "If you boys and girls had to sweat for your toys the way a newly born baby has to struggle to live, you would be happier... and much richer. As it is, with some of you, I pity the poverty of your wealth."

Comments (11)
sorted by:
6
Thegreatestrecovery 6 points ago +6 / -0

Notice that almost everything bad in the movie version was added in by the director who NEVER read the book. Imagine an animated or CGI version that would be true to the book and have Marines in Iron Man armor fighting giant bugs!

5
Watch_TheKarma_Burn [S] 5 points ago +5 / -0

My friend... may I introduce you to "Roughnecks: Starship Trooper Chronicles"...

I remember really digging it as a kid. Was much closer to the book than the movies.

2
Thegreatestrecovery 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thank you!

3
slrpnls 3 points ago +3 / -0

It bothers me when people talk about the movie as some hidden gem or some bullshit. It was garbage. No, it wasn't carefully hidden satire; it was in your fucking face satire that was just plain terrible.

1
Watch_TheKarma_Burn [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Eh, I like the movie too, hahaha... but it's definitely not "deep."

5
Covfefette 5 points ago +5 / -0

I read this book recently and was impressed how "right" it came across to me. Talking to a coworker about it I was told this book has always been controversial. I didn't even know it was a book; thought it was just kind of a stupid movie. I loved it.

7
Watch_TheKarma_Burn [S] 7 points ago +7 / -0

Yes. There had been a campaign of vilification of this book because it promoted right wing ideals in a way that made sense and was appealing. Can't have that.

3
nufosmatic 3 points ago +3 / -0

Value - something Heinlein understood well enough to explain exquisitely.

The very basis of Austrian Economics.

Everything in life is a trade. My relatively less valuable to me for your relatively more valuable to me.

3
Redd_Roostet 3 points ago +3 / -0

We pray for one last landing

On the globe that gave us birth;

Let us rest our eyes on the fleecy skies

And the cool, green hills of Earth.

2
Italians_Invented_2A 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thank you so much for this post!

I like the movie and I wanted to read the book, but I didn't know it was explaining socialism so well!

2
Watch_TheKarma_Burn [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

The book isn't anything like the movie and is actually a legitimate piece of literature.