[albatruss]

I'm not disagreeing with you or defending Marx, only pointing out a common misconception. Marx's project is frequently misunderstood.

> but the value of all goods derive from their use

That's the definition of value economists adopt today following the marginal revolution, just as artificial as Marx's definition of value, which he qualifies as use-value or exchange-value. Marginalism is a great descriptive explanation for situations like the diamond-water paradox, but it is not really relevant to Marx's prescriptive project, as it concerns only what Marx calls use-value, and Marx's project very much relies on exploring this distinction he identifies between use-value and exchange-value. Whether that exploration is correct or important is another question, but I hate seeing this confusion of definitions and goals crop up all the time. Marx doesn't hold all these obviously stupid straw men views people ascribe to him regarding (use-)value, rather he thinks that the way we conceive of value should be rethought.

[simonh]

It’s a shame the ways he rethought value were so toxic. Defining everything that isn’t primary production as parasitic really isn’t a healthy way to look at an economy.