The first question I have is a little more obvious, but I would like to have more in-depth explanations/resources for the second. These questions are based on an argument I had.

  1. Do advertisers give the products they advertise value?

My reasoning is that no, they do not give products more value. Useful labor gives value, whereas advertisements are both (a.) basically useless and (b.) not related to the production of the commodity. The person I was arguing with talked about how diamonds are useless, and they were artificially given demand by both ‘limited’ supply and vigorous advertisement campaigns. I replied that price gauging/differentiating exchange values does not mean an increase in use value/actual value, and the consumers were purely getting ripped off. The other person then said that advertisements, in fact, contributed to the inherent value of a product (somehow?) by making the consumer enjoy the commodity more. To me, even if advertisers were to produce use value, it would be in advertisements, not the commodities themselves. Given all of this do sales-people and advertisers fit the description to be part of the labor aristocracy?

  1. If (a.) an artist’s work is useful in creating art, (b.) art in society has value, and (c.) the value of art is ‘subjective’, do artists even produce use-value, or is art even subjective?
  • CommieGabredabok@lemmygrad.mlOP
    5·
    1 year ago

    Thanks for some further consideration! However, I do have a few things to say…

    I’d say both adds to the value of the commodity being advertised and the value of the commodity advertisement itself. As such advertisement isn’t just not useless, but actually quite essential…

    You do have a wonderful point about advertisements being necessary for commodity production. However, it almost feels as if I were to delve into philosophical idealism when agreeing to the idea of continuously more distant labor that creates value for an increasingly abstract commodity.

    I would be reluctant to agree that advertisers bring value to commodities they make advertisements about. It seems more as if advertisements are commodities themselves that have their use-values realized when viewing said advertisement, and the ability to advertise is exchanged by host websites, radio waves, television, or even not viewing ads with a premium on websites.

    Honestly, I’d avoid discussions around use-value with people like the one you were talking to. In my experience you don’t ever really get to anything, because you mostly just end up discussing semantics and terminology.

    Yeah, unfortunately, I am arguing with a relative of mine(who is not Marxist but knows I am), and I have foolishly used many Marxist terms with either no or poor elaboration. They have even unironically told me, “We need more diverse oppressors!!!”

    Why should we even make such a broad categorization [to advertisers and the labor aristocracy]?

    We shouldn’t. I have had poor experiences with people working in advertising, so that’s coming out a little bit, I suppose… It’s certainly a stretch to even consider categorizing all advertisers in the labor aristocracy.

    But anyway, I pretty much agree with most of what you have said. Great analysis!

    • sparkingcircuit@lemmygrad.ml
      4·
      1 year ago

      It seems more as if advertisements are commodities themselves that have their use-values realized when viewing said advertisement…

      This is an interesting point. I’ve never attempted to analyze advertising in this manner before. Analyzing adverts it as a tool (even if tailor made for an application, and regardless of its likeliness to become either irrelevant, or less relevant upon the transition to a more advanced mode of production), seems as though it could be very useful.