Does something need to be an object of utility to have value?

in #loveyesterday

I wrote about this quote from Karl Marx yesterday, and I promised that I would follow up with more text today, so here I am. Does something need to be an object of utility to have value? For example, the cucumber in the fridge has value, because it is an object I can use to make a salad, or put on my bread, or eat when I am thirsty. So, a cucumber has value.

Gasoline for my car has value, because it can make my car drive forward and help me in many other ways.

_2f4b69ff-ac7c-4991-b2c2-700e360d6d0a.jpeg

But, yesterday I discussed whether Bitcoin has value... after all, that depends on whether it is an object with a utility or not. So, that is a brilliant question, and I consider Bitcoin to have store of value, that is, against inflation, against inflated currencies created by nations, and so much more. BUt, what about the MEME coins with absolutely no utility, besides being stupid? I honestly don't give those much value.

But, what about love? Loving people is about loving someone, simply because they are, not because they deserve or have done something special. And as you love people, it doesn't really turn into an object of utility, nor the person, nor your love. They are just consequences, but I would definitely say that there are no things more precious than love on this earth.

In other words, I do not really agree with Karl Marx, even though there is some wisdom in what he said.