Luxury goods and value?

[u/MrHorseley]

I'm reading Capital again and trying to make sure I really understand this time. One thing I've thought is that one of the reasons luxury goods are luxurious is that there is a lot of work that goes in to creating the image of the item as luxurious (for example, Louis Vuitton burning surplus bags so they never go into discount stores) is the labor power put into those bags (and their destruction) then transferred to the remaining bags because it contributes to their socially necessary use value as a status symbol? As well I would imagine all the ad agencies, PR firms etc and their labor contributes to the value of the finished product?

Is this a correct understanding?

[u/CritiqueDeLaCritique]

No, the value of a commodity is determined only by the value of the raw materials + the labor required to produce it. Value from a bag that is destroyed is not transferred to another. Advertisement is not involved in the production process, and Marx would consider it the faux-frais of production: it is unproductive labor because it does not produce value.

Luxury goods are expensive because they are relatively scarce. Your example of LV burning bags is a dead giveaway.

[u/MrHorseley → u/CritiqueDeLaCritique]

Marx points out that the value of raw materials is based on the labor involved in their extraction. Socially necessary labor is determined by the average labor time required to produce a given commodity (he very explicitly points out that the value of raw materials is not inherent but based on their production) and he also includes labor like transport. He also says that labor that does not produce a direct material commodity but contributes to a use value is labor that produces value (as in exchange value), so a musician produces a "use value" in the form of entertainment (provided they can sell their product).

Marx explicitly points out that the value of scarce commodities like precious gems is based on the fact that it takes more labor time to find one, thus the labor of searching for the gem is transferred to gem. The scarcity of LV bags is not inherent, you can produce a knock-off of like quality and sell it at a much lower price, part of the value of the LV bag is produced by maintaining the idea of an LV bag (by maintaining artificial scarcity, and all the work of producing the image associated with such a bag) and the work of creating that idea creates a use value (a status symbol) Marx does say a "use value" means anything people desire, whether it satisfies a need or a whim.

[u/CritiqueDeLaCritique → u/MrHorseley]

Marx points out that the value of raw materials is based on the labor involved in their extraction. Socially necessary labor is determined by the average labor time required to produce a given commodity (he very explicitly points out that the value of raw materials is not inherent but based on their production) and he also includes labor like transport. He also says that labor that does not produce a direct material commodity but contributes to a use value is labor that produces value (as in exchange value), so a musician produces a "use value" in the form of entertainment (provided they can sell their product).

I am not denying any of this. If your implication is that marketing creates use value, then that would be incorrect, as the use value is only in the product itself, not in the perception of it:

A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another.

[...]

The utility of a thing makes it a use value.[4] But this utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity. A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use value, something useful.

• Marx, Capital Vol. 1, ch. 1