I think this is a common misconception of the comparison between "capitalism" and other forms of economic distribution. It's not capitalism that equates everything to dollars, it is how the universe works. This was the beauty of Karl Marx's thinking. He postulated that the best way to measure value is in the amount of human labor that goes into the output. However, once you have a medium to equate the value of a new chair into labor then I can come up with an another transformation to equate that labor into some defined quantity of glass beads. It turns out that choosing Labor as the "value" is completely arbitrary, and so dollars (or yen or gold) works just as well as a medium for conversion.
Choosing labor as the value is worse than arbitrary, because labor is far less fungible than (say) commodities. The value of labor depends on whose labor it is for the job. Half an hour's labor by one person can turn apples, flour, butter, and sugar into a delicious pie; half an hour's labor by a different person will create a soggy mess. In one case, labor adds value; in another case, it destroys value (can't use that flour for anything else now.)
> This was the beauty of Karl Marx's thinking. He postulated that the best way to measure value is in the amount of human labor that goes into the output.
This is indeed the most beautiful insight of Karl Marx that I ever read. This predicts perfectly why all socialist/communist economies collapse. They value inefficiency. The more work is needed to build a product, the more valuable it is --- according to Marx. That is one of the most fundamental error in his theories.
You're assuming socialist/communist economies must, for some reason, be run exactly the same as capitalist economies. Of course if you're trying to mix both it will collapse.
The point of Marx isn't that we should create markets where the value is decided by the amount of labor. The point of Marx is that if Labor creates value, then Labor should be in charge. The problem being that Labor is hard, so the end goal cannot be to maximize Labor (or value), contrary to your implied way of thinking were the most value must be created.
If maximizing value is not the goal, then why should Marxism redefine value in a counter-intuitive way?
Btw, "Labor" cannot be in charge, outside the UK at least, because Labor is an abstract concept. In Marxist societies people are in charge that pretend to have the laborers best interest in their hearts. But as they "Some are more equal than others."
> If maximizing value is not the goal, then why should Marxism redefine value in a counter-intuitive way?
Because it's only an exchange value and doesn't take into account the myriad of things that also have value but are not a consequence of work ? And the goal of Marxism might not be to maximize exchange value ?
> In Marxist societies people are in charge that pretend to have the laborers best interest in their hearts
Hard disagree, looking at societies applying values evolved from Marxist theories I see people in charge of themselves. I think of the old Commune de Paris, of the Spanish Revolution, of the Rojava. You need to look further than the one example you have in mind.
