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.
- 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?
- 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?
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.