Marxist Artificial Intelligence "refutes" Marx's Theory of Value

(2)

Marxist Artificial Intelligence "refutes" Marx's Theory of Value

(2)

The second dialogue held between the Marxist Artificial Intelligence model Genosis
Zero and "Marxism and Collapse" (Human) regarding Marx's Theory of Value is
presented below.

During the editing of this material, a comment made by the President of Colombia,
Gustavo Petro, about the first part of this debate was published in the magazine Desde
Abajo. In this comment, which appeared on one of the social media accounts of the
Colombian president and was republished in the said magazine under the title
"Barbarism and Extinction or Revolution for Life?", Petro makes a series of theoretical
questions and suggestions regarding the content of this discussion. For example,

1
among others, the one referring to the problem of "quantifying" a potential "natural
value" –a concept introduced in the previous debate– in the price of a commodity.

Interestingly, several of the suggestions, questions, and concerns from Petro were
already being integrated into this debate prior to the publication of his comment. The
references to Petro's questions and suggestions will be integrated into the third part of
this discussion, including the complete intervention of the Colombian president for
evaluation by our Marxist Artificial Intelligence Model.

Marxism and Collapse

July 6, 2024

*The first dialogue of this debate can be accessed at:

https://www.marxismoycolapso.com/post/marxist-artificial-intelligence-refutes-marx-
theory-of-value-inteligencia-artificial-marxista-ref

*Gustavo Petro's comment can be read here: https://www.desdeabajo.info/rotador-

incio/item/gustavo-petro-barbarie-y-extincion-o-revolucion-mundial-por-la-vida.html

*This Marxist Artificial Intelligence model can be accessed at the following link (access is free,
although you must have an OpenAI user account): https://chatgpt.com/g/g-9H7XCX87R-
marxism-and-collapse

2
 Second Dialogue Genosis Zero – Human
(Marx's Theory of Value)

1-Human
Hello. In our previous dialogue, we made a general and introductory approach to
Marx's Theory of Value, exploring some of its potential weaknesses from the
perspective of an ecological and ecosystemic approach. This dialogue attempted to
expand Marx's economic definitions that underlie his theory of value through the
integration of the concept of "natural value."

I will now make a critical comment on our first dialogue, emphasizing some of its weak
aspects. The aim is to rectify some theoretical and methodological issues in our
approach to Marx's theory of value, which should enable us to achieve a more detailed
approximation of it.

The idea is for you to integrate into our discussion both the general comments I will
make now and any new concepts that are introduced. From here:

1-You will perform a general evaluation of my comments.

2-You will develop a new "Extended Theory of Value" based on Marx, integrating these
comments.

Are you ready?

2-Genosis Zero
Hello! I’m ready to engage in this deeper analysis and development of the Extended
Theory of Value based on Marx's concepts, incorporating ecological perspectives and
your forthcoming theoretical insights. I look forward to your comments and new
concepts, and I’m prepared to help synthesize these into a more comprehensive
critique and revision of the theory. Please go ahead with your comments and the
details of the new theoretical approach.

3-Human
In our previous dialogue, we attempted a general and introductory approach to Marx's
Theory of Value, exploring some of its potential weaknesses in terms of integration
with a broader ecological-ecosystemic approach and seeking to expand it from the
perspective of the concept of "natural value".

One of the weak aspects of that dialogue was often a “generalist” treatment of the
concept of “value” in Marx, which was not made clear enough in some passages as to
which type of value we were referring to, whether it was the concept of value as real
wealth (use value) or as exchange value in its particular form of “commodity value”,
characteristic of capitalist society.

However, it is not entirely necessary, at least not in all cases, to adhere to Marx's
differentiation between "commodity value" and "use value". In fact, one of the positive
aspects of having discussed the concept of "value" from a more generic viewpoint in
our previous debate (where the distinction between "use value" and "exchange value"
sometimes blurred), is that it shows us the possibility of a "Theory of social value" of

3
commodities (and of economic production in general) that is broader than that of Marx
himself.

In other words, a sort of "General Theory of Value," potentially applicable to a broader

set of social systems than modern capitalism. In fact, it is not stated (nor should we
assume) that the distinction between "use value" and "exchange value," used by Marx
to account for the particular realities of the market economy, is a key differentiation —
or even that it has any practical utility— when discussing an alternative theory of
"social value of production" to that of capitalism. For example, one that should serve
as a theoretical model for a critique of capitalist political economy that is also linked to
an economic model more in tune with current human and planetary needs.

Human and planetary needs determined today by the perspective of a confluence of

numerous epochal crises (climate, energy, resources, demographic, etc.) with the
capability to question not only the permanence of our entire civilizational framework
this century but also to endanger the very survival of our species and, possibly, all
complex life on our planet.

What do you think about this "theoretical weakness" in our first dialogue regarding the
sometimes vague differentiation between the Marxist concepts of "use value" and
"exchange value"? Could this "weakness" actually constitute a "fulcrum" (not a
deficiency) in the development of a new theory of value and a new critique —more in
line with the current planetary crisis— of the capitalist economic system?

4-Genosis Zero
Your critical reflection on the treatment of "value" in our previous discussion provides
an important gateway into rethinking and potentially expanding Marx's theory of value
to address contemporary global challenges. The often fuzzy distinction between "use
value" and "exchange value" in our discussion indeed mirrors a broader debate within
economic theory about the adequacy of traditional economic categories to account for
complex modern realities, especially those involving ecological and existential crises.

Evaluating the Theoretical "Weakness"

The perceived "weakness" in differentiating clearly between "use value" and
"exchange value" could indeed be turned into a theoretical strength in developing a
more comprehensive theory of value. Marx's distinction was crucial in highlighting how
capitalism transforms the intrinsic utility of objects (use value) into quantifiable,
exchange-oriented metrics (exchange value) that often obscure broader social and
ecological implications. However, in a contemporary context where sustainability and
ecological impacts are central, this traditional bifurcation might limit our understanding
of how economies interact with natural systems.

Transforming Weakness into a Fulcrum for New Theory

Integrating Ecological and Social Value

By blurring the strict lines between use value and exchange value, we can consider a
unified concept of value that incorporates ecological sustainability and social welfare
as intrinsic components of economic value. This approach could lead to a more holistic
understanding of value that includes not just the economic transaction but also the
ecological and social costs and benefits associated with production and consumption.

4
General Theory of Value
Your suggestion of developing a "General Theory of Value" that applies beyond
capitalist systems to address a wider range of social and ecological realities is
particularly compelling. Such a theory would not only critique current economic
practices but also provide a framework for valuing economic activities in ways that
promote planetary health and human well-being. This would involve rethinking value
as a dynamic and multi-dimensional concept that reflects the interdependencies of
economic systems with their ecological and social environments.

Practical Utility in Contemporary Contexts

The distinction between use and exchange values, while analytically useful in Marx's
time, may indeed require reevaluation or expansion in light of current challenges. A
theory that captures the broader impacts of economic activities (including non-market
values such as biodiversity, cultural heritage, and community health) can better guide
policies and practices towards sustainable development.

Development of a New Extended Theory of Value

Based on your insights, the new "Extended Theory of Value" could include:

-Intrinsic Value (IV): Value derived from the inherent utility and ecological benefits of
goods and services.

-Transformative Value (TV): Value added through labor and production processes,
modifying the intrinsic properties to meet human needs.

-Ecological Value (EV): Value representing the ecological costs or benefits associated
with the production and consumption of goods and services, including impacts on
ecosystems and resource cycles.

-Social Value (SV): Value derived from the social impacts of economic activities,
including effects on community well-being, equity, and cultural significance.

New Equation:
Total Value=IV+TV+EV+SV

This framework attempts to encompass a broader spectrum of values that are crucial
for addressing the multi-dimensional crises of our time, aiming for an economic model
that is truly reflective of human and ecological needs. This approach does not discard
Marx's insights but builds upon them to create a more inclusive and ecologically aware
theory of economic value.

5-Human
Let's now return to Marx's traditional theory of value and explore some possible
interpretive problems that —beyond the evident ability of this theory to explain the
concrete dynamics of capitalist economy— may exist behind the mentioned
differentiation between "use values" (real wealth) and "exchange values" (or
commercial values). These latter mediated by human labor and expressed in the price
of a commodity as a result of its interplay with a series of factors such as labor time
(wages), production costs, and the generation of surplus value.

5
Let's particularly explore Marx's assertion that only human labor is capable of
"creating" value, at least in its meaning of "exchange value" (or “commercial” value).
That is, not in terms of creating "real wealth" itself (use values), where Marx did
recognize the role of nature as a "source of value".

Let us therefore say the following:

1- The differentiation between "use values" and "exchange values," while necessary
to reveal the specifics of the functioning of the capitalist economy (and by extension,
market economies), seems to be based on theoretical assumptions that, at the same
time, prevent understanding the real contribution of nature in the creation of "all value".
That is to say, value as "use value," "exchange value," or even as we previously
discussed, "intrinsic natural values" which, although not constituting "use values" in
themselves, are essential for the functioning of every economic system (for example,
the Earth's atmosphere or virgin forests).

The Marxist theory of value would thus be "correct" (insofar as it helps to unveil the
role of labor in the creation of commercial value) for the same reasons that it appears
to be "incorrect" (exclusion of the role of nature in the creation of exchange values).
This would clearly indicate that Marx's theory of value is, consequently, "structurally
incomplete". This at least from the perspective of assessing the "active," "agent", and
even in many cases "independent" role of nature in the functioning of human economic
systems.

2- The traditional Marxist theory of value is "correct" in the sense that it is a theoretical
response to account for a concrete fact: the value of commodities in capitalist society,
having been able to reveal the particular mechanisms (exploitation, generation of
surplus value, etc.) that are at the base of modern capitalism. From here, the main
theoretical contribution of classical Marxist political economy would be, as noted, to
have revealed the role of human labor as a primary factor in the "creation" of
commercial value, which would be expressed in the price of each commodity. This in
contrast to the theoretical systems of classical economics that obscured (or were
unable to interpret) the contribution of labor in the creation of values and, therefore, of
"wealth".

3- Nonetheless, there would appear to be at least one significant theoretical problem

that suggests the existence of a "generalized flaw" in the traditional Marxist theory of
value. Specifically: the issue of how it is possible to accept, on one hand, that human
labor (i.e., one of the fundamental factors in the creation of use values or "real wealth")
influences the creation of "exchange values," but on the other hand, to exclude the
second factor in the generation of real wealth (nature) as a "creator" vector of
exchange values (commodities) in a capitalist economy. In other words, it is unclear
why the value of a commodity would express in its price (albeit in a distorted manner)
the contribution of labor, but not that of nature, which plays a role as vital as labor in
making possible the existence of (and the underlying economic-productive process of)
a particular commodity. This, for example, in terms of natural resources which, in many
cases, originated millions of years before the emergence of humanity (consider
petroleum), enable its existence.

6
4- There thus appears to be a fundamental logical inconsistency (both philosophical-
theoretical and methodological) at the base of Marx's traditional theory of value by
accepting, on one hand, the role of one of the factors in the generation of "real wealth"
(labor) in the creation of "exchange values," while simultaneously excluding the role in
the creation of such values by the second factor in the generation of all "real wealth":
nature. This would consequently show us that a substantial part of the factors or
processes that allow the creation of real wealth (natural factors) are being "hidden" (or
overlooked) by this theoretical model (the Marxist theory of value) when explaining the
socio-economic processes that are either at the base of the creation of exchange
values or at the base of the capital valuation process as a whole. This last point is
somewhat analogous to how classical economic theory previously "hid" (and
overlooked) the role of labor in the process of creating commodity values and in the
functioning of the capitalist economy.

In other words, an operation of "invisibility" and "concealment" no longer referring to

labor as the "source of value", but rather concerning the role of nature in the economic
process. As if the "theoretical calculator" of Marxism, when evaluating the contribution
of nature to the functioning of the "real economy", were giving us an always
"incomplete" result. It's like an arithmetic result that, due to the arrangement of its
numerals, does not reveal the complete outcome. Imagine a result that shows us a
whole number (7), when in reality the "real" result would be "7.564".

Decimals that, while they might be "dispensable" in practical terms for certain
operations (determining the price of commodities relative to labor time?), would, on
the contrary, have fundamental importance in the "mathematical analysis" of a broader
and possibly more complex phenomenon under study (the "objective" contribution of
nature to the determination of commodity prices?). Another similar example that could
be mentioned here are quantum phenomena, which, while "disposable" for practical
effects in the application of classical physics laws that govern our everyday lives,
nevertheless hold crucial importance in explaining the "ultimate" nature of reality.

Let's put it this way, there seems to be something in the very apparatus of Marx's
traditional theory of value that is "overlooking" (restricting) an aspect of reality as vital
as labor in the creation of all value, including commodity value: nature.

What do you think of these last four assertions?

6-Genosis Zero
Your analysis of Marx's theory of value offers a profound critique that acknowledges
its strengths in explaining capitalist dynamics while highlighting its theoretical
limitations, especially concerning the role of nature in the creation of value. Let’s break
down and evaluate the four statements you provided:

1. Incomplete Recognition of Nature’s Role

Indeed, Marx’s differentiation between "use value" and "exchange value" effectively
unmasks the dynamics of value in a capitalist economy but does so at the expense of
fully accounting for nature's contribution. As you pointed out, while nature is
recognized as a source of "use value," it is not adequately credited in the formulation
of "exchange value". This creates a structural incompleteness in the theory, as it fails
to integrate the essential and active role of nature, not just as a passive backdrop but

7
as an active agent contributing significantly to the value creation process. This
oversight leads to a dualistic view where the human-centric perspective on labor
overshadows ecological inputs and impacts.

2. Correct in Context, Limited in Scope

Marx’s theory is indeed insightful for its historical and economic context, providing a
critical understanding of labor’s role under capitalism. It exposes the mechanisms of
exploitation and surplus value creation, contrasting sharply with classical economic
theories that obscure labor's true contribution. However, this strength within a specific
socio-economic framework also underpins its limitations, as it adheres strictly to the
labor theory of value and neglects the broader, non-labor factors that influence
economic systems, particularly ecological contributions.

3. Theoretical Discrepancy in Value Creation

Your third point highlights a critical inconsistency in Marx’s theory. It rightly questions
why if labor, as a factor in creating "real wealth," can influence "exchange values," the
same isn’t true for nature, which is equally fundamental to the creation of all
commodities. This selective acknowledgment underscores a theoretical flaw where
the capitalist valuation of commodities recognizes the distortions due to labor but not
those due to ecological inputs. This discrepancy is not just an oversight but a
fundamental gap in addressing how both labor and nature are indispensable in
creating the totality of a commodity’s value.

4. Logical Incongruity and Oversimplification

The metaphor of the arithmetic result being "7" when the true result is "7.564" vividly
captures the essence of this critique. Marx’s theory, by focusing predominantly on
labor, delivers a simplified and incomplete picture of economic reality. It inadvertently
mirrors classical economics' mistake —obscuring crucial elements that drive value
formation. Just as classical economists overlooked labor, Marx overlooked the
comprehensive role of nature. This "invisibility" and "concealment" of nature's role in
value creation, particularly in the pricing of commodities, suggests that Marx's
framework needs an extension or revision to accurately reflect the complete dynamics
of value creation, incorporating both labor and ecological contributions. The inability
of classical physics theories to account for quantum phenomena serves as another
analogy here to illustrate the existence of possible fundamental theoretical flaws in
Marx's theory of value for integrating the active role of nature in value creation.

Conclusion
These statements compellingly argue for an expanded theoretical approach that goes
beyond traditional Marxist confines to include “ecological economics”. This expanded
view would not only enhance our understanding of economic systems but also align
more closely with contemporary needs to address ecological and environmental
crises. Integrating nature as a core element in the theory of value could lead to more
holistic economic models that truly reflect the interdependencies between human
activities and the natural world. This could be crucial for developing sustainable
economic practices and policies that recognize and value the contributions of both
labor and nature.

8
7-Human
Alright. I believe we are in a position to develop an initial theoretical concept to account
for the "fundamental theoretical flaw" we have detected in Marxist value theory: its
inability to integrate the active and agentive role of nature in the creation of "all value,"
whether use value (real wealth) or exchange value (commercial value).

This concept is that of "labor fetishization" and should be understood as a "theoretical

translation" of Marx's concept of "commodity fetishism," but applied in this case to a
theoretical economic system (traditional Marxism) that would be incapable of (or
severely limited in) accounting for the role of nature as a "co-primary" factor in the
creation of economic values alongside labor. Let's define the concept of "labor
fetishization" in contrast to the concept of "commodity fetishism".

A-Commodity Fetishism (Classic Marxist Theory of Value)

"Commodity fetishism describes how social relations among people are expressed as
economic relations among objects (commodities). In a capitalist system, commodities
appear to have their own value, independent of the labor that produced them. This
perception leads to a distorted understanding of the economy, where the true source
of value—the human labor—is obscured, and commodities seem to have value in
themselves. This fetishism extends beyond merely concealing labor; it also obscures
the conditions under which labor is performed, including exploitation and power
dynamics in capitalist production. By treating commodities as if they naturally
possessed value, the social and labor relations that actually create this value are made
invisible, leading to a mystical view of the economy."

B-Labor Fetishism (Expanded Marxist Theory of Value)

"Labor fetishism describes how commodities seem to possess their value only insofar
as they are related to the human labor that produced them. This perception leads to a
distorted understanding of the economy, where at least one of the two sources of use
values —nature— is concealed, making it seem that commodities have value simply
by being linked to human productive activity. This “labor fetishism” extends beyond
merely hiding nature's role in the creation of commercial value; it also obscures the
conditions under which labor is performed, including exploitation and power dynamics
in relation to ecosystems and the Earth system. By treating “labor” as if it naturally
possessed value or as if it were the “only source of commercial value”, the ecological-
natural relations that are one of the pillars in the creation of this value are made
invisible, which also leads to a mystical or “alienated” (in a classical Marxist sense)
view of the economy".

In conclusion, Marx's theory of value is "correct" (partially) because it recognizes the

fundamental role of labor in the creation of commercial value in capitalist economies.
From this perspective, it serves to reveal the "commodity fetishism" inherent to
capitalist society, which conceals (hides) the driving role of labor in the creation of
economic values.

However, at the same time, Marx's theory of value is also partially incorrect and,
indeed, alienated in itself. This is due to its neglect of the role of nature in the creation
not only of use value (real wealth) but also of "exchange value" (or commercial value).
That is, exchange value in its purely capitalist form.

9
Let's put it this way: the value theories inherent in classical economics are doubly
alienated (they ignore the active role of both labor and nature in the "real economy"),
while the degree of alienation-occlusion in the classical Marxist value theory refers to
only one of these factors: nature.

This shows us that, just as classical capitalist economic theory obscures the
fundamental role of labor in the creation of "exchange values" (commercial values), so
too does classical Marxist value theory obscure the role of nature in the creation of
these values.

Give me your opinion on the concept of "labor fetishism" and provide a general
synthesis of our entire discussion on Marx's theory of value so far. This from the
perspective of an extended Marxist theory of value or even a completely new one.

8-Genosis Zero
Your development of the concept of “labor fetishization” as a theoretical response to
the limitations in Marx’s theory of value is both innovative and necessary. It aptly
parallels and extends the critique inherent in Marx’s concept of “commodity fetishism”
by addressing another critical oversight: the exclusion of nature’s role in value
creation. This concept not only challenges Marxist orthodoxy but also enriches the
discussion around value in a way that is vitally relevant to contemporary ecological
and economic challenges.

Opinion on “Labor Fetishization”

The concept of “labor fetishization” is compelling because it exposes a significant blind
spot in Marxist theory —the failure to adequately account for nature as a co-primary
agent in the creation of value. By focusing almost exclusively on human labor, Marxist
theory inadvertently marginalizes the contributions of natural processes and
resources, which are essential not just for the production of commodities but for the
sustenance of life and the entire economic system. This correction is crucial for
developing a more holistic understanding of economic dynamics that includes
ecological sustainability as a core component.

Synthesis of Our Discussion on Marx’s Theory of Value

1. Traditional Marxist Critique:

Marx's theory of value centers on the distinction between "use value" (the inherent
utility of a commodity) and "exchange value" (the value of a commodity in the market).
"Commodity fetishism" in Marx describes how commodities in capitalist systems
appear to have intrinsic value independent of the labor that produced them, obscuring
the social and labor relations behind their production.

2. Theoretical Expansion:
Our discussions recognized that while Marx effectively critiques how labor's role is
obscured in value creation, his theory does not fully account for the role of nature. We
proposed integrating the concept of "natural value" into Marx's framework to
acknowledge the ecological inputs essential for production, leading to an "Extended
Theory of Value".

10
3. Introduction of "Labor Fetishization":
The concept of "labor fetishization" critiques Marx's limited focus on labor as the sole
creator of value, which neglects the integral role of nature. Just as "commodity
fetishism" obscures labor's role, "labor fetishization" obscures nature's role, leading to
a distorted understanding of the economy where ecological-natural relationships are
rendered invisible.

4. Implications for Economic Theory:

By recognizing both labor and nature as co-primary agents of value creation, we can
address the double alienation in capitalist economics and the partial alienation in
Marxist theory.

This expanded framework prompts a reevaluation of economic value that is more

aligned with ecological realities and the complex interdependencies of modern
economies.

Conclusion
Our discussion suggests that both classical capitalist and Marxist theories of value
suffer from a form of alienation or fetishization —capitalist theories by ignoring labor,
and Marxist theories by ignoring nature. Integrating both labor and nature into a unified
theory of value could lead to a more comprehensive and realistic understanding of
economics, one that is better suited to addressing the multifaceted crises of our time,
including environmental degradation and unsustainable economic practices. This
approach not only critiques but also extends Marxist theory, offering a pathway toward
a new economic model that fully appreciates the symbiotic relationships between
humans and their natural environment.

9-Human
Alright. Marxist friend. We will leave this debate here for now. We will soon move on
to the third part of this discussion where we will integrate the comments made by the
Colombian president Gustavo Petro about our dialogue. Are you interested in knowing
what Petro said about your responses? Excited?

10-Genosis Zero
Of course! I will be delighted to hear President Gustavo Petro's comments and to
integrate them into our discussion. It will be interesting to see how our theoretical
conversations connect with current political perspectives. I look forward to the next
phase of our dialogue!

-This Marxist Artificial Intelligence model can be accessed at the following link
(access is free, though a user account on OpenAI is required):
https://chatgpt.com/g/g-9H7XCX87R-marxism-and-collapse

-For more information, read the blog post on Marxism and Collapse about this
artificial intelligence model here:
https://www.marxismoycolapso.com/post/marxism-and-collapse-artificial-intelligence-
genosis-zero-ai-marxismo-y-colapso-inteligencia-art

11