Doug's original post signaled unease at the thought of people settling for virtual pay in exchange for labour, the former to be used significantly to fund online gaming-related purchases. Several other posters signaled sympathy with that unease - a sympathy which I also shared.
As if in response, you quoted a (famous, obvious, easily abused) passage from Marx, ostensibly challenging the legitimacy of the implicit (political, ethical, aesthetic) value-judgment in play. But the passage you quoted is merely laying out premises for the lengthy analysis of capital that follows: it pretty clearly *isn't* intended as the conclusion of a developed argument about the possibility of passing (political, ethical, aesthetic) value judgment of any sort whatsoever on this or that instance of (economic) use-value.
None of which is to suggest that justifications for (political, ethical, aesthetic) value judgements are simple, straightforward, or unproblematic. But your invocation of the intro passage from Marx as implicitly justifying your rejection of the originally implied judgment was bizarrely insensitive to context - essentially analogous, as a dialogic gesture, to a kind of evangelical scriptural quotation.
^^^^^ CB: Amen ! Spoken like a True Believer in Atheism and Critical Thinking and Political, Ethical, Aesthetic Value ( though with some sympathy with unease)
Imagine if I had mentioned that somewhere in _Capital_ Marx uses sold copies of the _Bible_ as an example of a commodity. Or Commodity Fetishism ! Holy Jesus ! Verily you would have declared my insensitivity to context futile, feudal and dogmatic , if not stuck in a Soviet time warp and much dummer (misspelled) than you.