>>76367
>You can not argue that the exact same fucking product can be valued differently.
If there is a local scarcity or surplus, you certainly can. Let's use the extreme example of bottled water in a hurricane. In the face of impending shortages of drinkable water, people will prioritize purchasing water higher; hence, the value increases.
>What do you mean by this? There are monopolies, state services and subsitence economies, etc.
They still obey the same laws as goods traded on an open market.
>The same way capitalism transformed the social relationships of feudalism. Or any change in the mode of production in history, anywhere.
While the mode of production might change with historical circumstance (non-linearly in many occasions, I might add), the underlying laws which underpin the trade of products does not change. This is what we mean by a "market." I intentionally avoided using "capitalism."
>As a clarification, Marx talks about exchange as a social relation, not as the physical act of handing over a product.
Where Marx errs in his definition with respect to economic exchange is implied meaning of a social relation. While we may refer to exchanges as a social aggregate, to assert that recompensation for a good or service comes directly from society is an absurd abstraction. For economic interaction to be truly relational, there must be an act of exchange wherein two parties interface, otherwise there would be no exchange. When a worker sells the product of his labor, he must do so with another discrete party. In the economic sense, "society" emerges as a bottom-up aggregation of these interactions, rather than as an entity in the way Marx describes it.
>Marx has no interest in trying to observe value differently, he wants to abolish value altogether.
I assume by "value" you mean his exchange value. Again short of telepathy or a gestalt consciousness, you need interested parties interfacing in an exchange in order to allocate resources. As such, all economic activity obeys the laws of the market.
>The "market value" IS the price
No, the market price is a reflection of the aggregate value. One precedes the other.
>Diamonds have low use value, yet are more expensive than water.
You don't get to assert different coincident values because of perceived differences in prices and productive applications. If you're invoking the diamond-water paradox, then you should be well aware of the Marginalist solution.
>Marx never handwaves away supply and demand
When he has to constantly double back on his sociological rationalizations of Hegel and Feuerbach in order to explain away price fluctuations, that seems to me like hand-waving.
>Equilibrium prices presuppose that there is NO supply and demand, that's the definition of it
I'm going to be generous and assume you meant "equal." Supply and demand are obviously relevant; the intersection of the supply and demand curves indicate the location of the current equilibrium price. What Marx refers to as fluctuations are actually changes in the equilibrium caused by external factors shifting the curves. However, Marx can't acknowledge this plainly, as it would contradict his assertion that "true" utility, not capitalist exchange-value, is intrinsic and reflected through SNLT (unless we take "socially necessary" to mean "aggregate subjective").
>supply and demand will generally arrive at an equilibrium, unless someone sabotages it, or outlaws the commodity, or whatever
As expected, here is the conspiratorial element inherent in Marx's sociology.
>Humans produce what they want, and under capitalism, when you sell what people want, you are making a profit. Supply and demand doesn't have to be at a total equilibrium, but we can say that over time, they will evolve arround an equilibrium.
It almost sounds like you're conceding my points here. Inivation, creative destruction, entrepreneurship, and resource depletion, among other things, ensure that equlibrium continues to change without some grand classist conspiracy.
>This is logical, but what happens to production? Obviously production of said commodity will increase, because there is a high demand?
Yes, but not immediately and not always. These important details are why price signaling is the means by which all resource allocation is ultimately communicated. When you socialize resource allocation, instead of monetary signals, the "price" begins to be reflected in whether or not little Aleksei was fed enough bread to build X number of SVT-40s per day (which is also much slower due to the need of the central planner to issue a study of productivity, but I digress).
I'll get to the lower quality poster in a little, maybe.