[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   
File: 38 KB, 309x450, marxbio.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16092757 No.16092757 [Reply] [Original]

Does labour come before capital or does capital come before labour? Which is more important in the whole grand scale of economics.

Which is more valuable?

>> No.16092764

labor is kinetic energy
capital is potential energy

>> No.16092807

>>16092757
Labour does comes before Capital, as Capital is just old labour solidified. What creates wealth is not work per sé, but the social relationship between classes.

What does this mean? It's the appropriation of unpaid labour what fuels the capitalist wealth (as a whole, as a class), not the fact of working.

>> No.16092819

>>16092757
Usually people who run around talking about labor this labor that don't even have a job.

>> No.16092821

>>16092757
It's the same thing bro. Labor is capital.

>> No.16092881

>>16092757
goods and resources come before. "labor" is not necessarily worth anything.

>> No.16092942

>>16092881
Labor's worth depends on the demand for it.

>> No.16092944

>>16092821
No. Capital is stolen labor (surplus value) in motion.

Labor = ability to work. Labor power = ability to produce more value than cost of producing it. That is, can create surplus value which is the basis for capital.

>>16092807

Not wealth (access to use value) but value.

>> No.16092956

>>16092757
Labor is more important. Capital is a historically relative phenomenon that we will destroy and move beyond. Labor is a fundamental necessity of human existence.

>> No.16092968
File: 134 KB, 794x1001, 1569077350381.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16092968

>>16092944
"capital is stolen labor"
??? how does a mouhtbreather like you even use a computer

>> No.16092987

>>16092942
No demand means no exchange, sure. But how that actual cost is determined depends on the cost of maintaining existence.

Mandel, Intro to Marxism is a good place to start.

>>16092968

We won at Stalingrad. Follow your leader.

>> No.16092993

>>16092757
Value has nothing to do with labor or capital. It has everything to do with scarcity and demand. Pile of shit is worthless. Pile of 5,000 year old shit found in an Egyptian Pharoe's tomb is priceless. Both are piles of shit. One is abundant, and has zero demand, the other is scarce, and has high demand. Nothing to do with labor or capital.

>> No.16093028
File: 5 KB, 272x326, jewinshadows.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16093028

>>16092757
both labor and capital bow to the international Jew.

>> No.16093030

>>16092993
Likewise, you can engage in intense worthless labor. You can take a pile of pennies, methodically arrange them all by date, and then group them by Fed Reserve branch that issued them, and nobody gives a fuck. There is no demand for your labor, and that skill is abundant.

>> No.16093047

>>16092944
>Capital is stolen labor (surplus value) in motion.
>stolen labor
The problem with Marxist philosophy is that Marx was trying hard to make capitalists look like they owed something to laborers. In societies without slavery, labor contracts are voluntary and bilaterally agreed upon. Basically, if wagie accepts working for his boss, you can't accuse the boss of 'stealing' wagie's labor surpluses.
Marxism is politically biased; it's a moral philosophy rather than not a scientific framework. Therefore it's not useful for understanding how the economy works.

>> No.16093057

>>16092944
But that value - surplus value actually - gets converted into money and wealth in the transformation process. What I argued is that this transference of value from one class to another as a whole is what creates wealth

>>16092993
You can't even distinguish an object - the pile of shit -, from a relic NOT REPRODUCIBLE. You miss totally the point quoting neoclassicals and austrian economists.

The LVT doesn't apply to these last two things u mentioned but reproducible commodities created socially under WAGE LABOUR AND therefore Capitalist explotation.

>> No.16093087

>>16093030
>you can engage in intense worthless labor
Your work has to be validated socially, the value to exist needs to be realized - bought in this case.

It would be wise for you to read what Marx wrote before posting these weak arguments. All these typical arguments are answered in the first 200 pages of Das Kapital.

>> No.16093097

>>16092987
When I take a shit I burn calories to make my bowels move. There's a natural cost to taking a shit. Yet if there's no demand for my crap, it's worthless. What determines how much things are worth is supply vs. demand. It's the prices that people set during the exchange process. You can't just arbitrarily say that something has value. It has value insofar as others agree that it has value.

>Recommends me an introductory book
Bro I have a PhD. I majored in social sciences and read a fuckton of Marx's books and other Marxist crap and beyond.

>> No.16093152

>>16093047
>In societies without slavery, labor contracts are voluntary and bilaterally agreed upon. Basically, if wagie accepts working for his boss, you can't accuse the boss of 'stealing' wagie's labor surpluses.

rolf, thats why the majority of people in Earth has to work, because we've decided to work voluntarily in a job that we hate just for the sake of working. We work cuz either we do it or we starve, it's that easy.

Now you can fool yourself with the voluntary agreements bullshit if u dont want to accept that we are - wage - slaves.

>>16093097
>read a fuckton of Marx's books
I doubt that because u didnt even grasp the difference between physiologic work and concrete wage labour destined to produce commodities in exchange for a wage.

Either you lie or u are really dumb. You can disagree with Marx but at least don't repeat crap that he clarified 200 years ago in his books.

>> No.16093210

>>16093152
Fuck off retard if you wanna live you gotta work rather you be a waggie, farmer, or a begger. You acting as if life it's self is slavery. You make the choice to live.

>> No.16093221

>>16092819
Based and retard pilled

>> No.16093240

>>16092987
>we wuz the SU
sorry buddy, your communist pipe dream died almost 28 years ago. maybe you should go back in time 28 years and kill yourself

>> No.16093457

>>16093210
>You make the choice to live.

Yes, under some historical -therefore changable, i.e. a classless society - conditions that determines us more that we would willingly assume.

>> No.16093566

>>16093057
>You can't even distinguish an object - the pile of shit -, from a relic NOT REPRODUCIBLE.
I can distinguish them, in fact I did in my post. There wasn't any labor or capitlal that converted the object into a relic.

>> No.16093581

>>16093087
>It would be wise for you to read what Marx wrote before posting these weak arguments. All these typical arguments are answered in the first 200 pages of Das Kapital.
Why would I need to waste time reading 200 pages of Marx, when there's not one single example, ever, anywhere of it working; and a mountain of evidence that it fails?
Should I read up on geocentric astronomy and Zorastrianism too? What other old, outdated and proven wrong theories should I look in to?

>> No.16093583

>>16093152
>>16093097
Do you think capital will consume labour one day to the point where the cost of human labour will be worthless, or not needed. What will happen then? Hypothetically speaking.

>> No.16093609

>>16093152
>We work cuz either we do it or we starve, it's that easy.
That's always been the case. If we didn't earn a wage to buy food, we'd have to go out into the woods and hunt for food, and physically plow our own fields and grow our own crops. Our ancestors decided that sucked, and it was better to work a job, so you can have the weekend off.
You can go join up with the Amish if you don't like working a job. Nobody will exploit you, and you won't have a mortgage, but you're going to bust your ass from sunrise to sunset.

>> No.16093648

>>16093152

Who steals your labor if you start your own business?

If you start your own business and create 500 jobs that didn't previously exist does that mean you are stealing from 500 people by creating those jobs?

>> No.16093675

>>16092757
Grant that labor is real and capital exists by social convention (in the form of money)

Still, capital is more valuable than labor because it can be exchanged for labor and for anything else, whereas labor can only be exchanged for capital, and perhaps a handful of bartered goods (room and board, for example).

As a representation of pure value, capital comes before everything. As far as real assets, labor is very important, but there is also land, raw materials, information, etc. -- it might be the most important among them because the rest stand inert without labor to turn them into something more, and increase value.

>> No.16093828

>>16093152
Comrade, why are you on biz? Shitcoin gambling?

>> No.16093858

>>16093566
That relic can't be explain through the LVT, nor was the intention of Marx to do so. Also you can't explain the value of objects made in that era with the LVT because it was made under other social conditions and in another mode of production, sclavism.

>>16093581
You can see the works of Michael Roberts explaining cyclical crisis in Capitalism with the law of tendency for the rate of profit to fall or Paul Cockshot explaining of commodity prices based in IO tables (Labour and Capital). Educate urself.

>>16093609
It's not about going back into the woods, its about emancipating humanity from having to dedicate most of his life to subsistence.

>>16093648
I don't like to use "steal", because it's the appropriation of surplus value is legal under bourgeois law and morality. It's Proudhon who said: "la propriété c'est le vol". So, with that being said, You don't "steal" when you are doing your own business, in fact you are only "exploiting" yourself creating and realizing value. If - you have to good/lucky - you save enough money to hire more people then there's where the whole exploitation cycle commences. You are not "creating" these jobs, you actually need these people to increment your profit and therefore you pay them a proportional part while you keep accumulating Capital. This is my best/short explanation for a singaporean website.

>>16093583
Capital can't consume labour entirely because HUMAN labour is the only source of value that exists, but the tendence in Capitalism is to reduce the use of labour with machinery and such to increment in short term the profits but in long term this is only perjudicial to the system because the profit tend to fall. This is one of the ways Capitalism heads into a crisis every few years

>> No.16093923

>>16093858
>You are not "creating" these jobs, you actually need these people to increment your profit and therefore you pay them a proportional part while you keep accumulating Capital.

Yes you did. Who created the jobs then? The people doing the jobs don't invent the jobs they do.

>> No.16093945

>>16093828
Yes, I unironically want to buy myself a free years from wage slavery to study for myself and travel. wbu?

>>16093923
My point is that having the need of those jobs shouldn't entitle anyone to "claim" others people value, aka keep getting richer while they usually receive their subsistence.

>> No.16093960

>>16093858
>but the tendence in Capitalism is to reduce the use of labour with machinery and such to increment in short term the profits but in long term this is only perjudicial to the system because the profit tend to fall.

What are you talking about? That's not true. So hiring one person to dig a hole with a machine is less profitable than hiring 500 people to dig it with their hands? How did they make you so stupid?

>> No.16094024

>>16093960
ROLF, you deny that the share of labour in Production - Not Distribution - the last 200 years has not decreased considerably?

Do you really think that in global terms Capital uses the same percentage of Capital and Labour for the production of commodities?

>So hiring one person to dig a hole with a machine is less profitable than hiring 500 people to dig it with their hands?
Never said that. You are misrepresenting my words. If you really want to learn what I'm trying to say just google about "Tendency of Organic Composition to Rise" it's not really hard to grasp.

>> No.16094122
File: 487 KB, 6107x3993, ltrpf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16094122

>>16093960
>So hiring one person to dig a hole with a machine is less profitable than hiring 500 people to dig it with their hands? How did they make you so stupid?

What I claim is that human labour is the only source of value, then, machinery and capital in general are solidified labour and the Capitalist class a whole compete with between them.

This competition provokes a run to augment productivity, this is done by introducing machinery, this machinery reduces X workingmen in that sector, by one side this increments production time of production of commodities and by the other reduces the amount of value "captured".

This competition in all the sectors that form the Capitalist economy keeps reducing the amount surplus value captured and at the same time keep boosting productivity, therefore each commodity "has less value" than before reducing profits. This creates a TENDENCE to profit to fall.

There's enough historical evidence to support it, for example: https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/the-us-rate-of-profit-1948-2015/

>> No.16094216

>>16093945
Same. It will take decades at my current wage to pay of my debt. Careful of the chans. The filth here can leave a subconscious mark.

>> No.16094326

>>16093945
>My point is that having the need of those jobs shouldn't entitle anyone to "claim" others people value, aka keep getting richer while they usually receive their subsistence.

It's not "your" value. It never was and never will be. You're only entitled to what you agreed to do the job for.

So real world example (or hypothetical, doesn't really matter if you believe me), after I cashed out a majority of my crypto gains I invested in a really small restaurant. Signed the lease, applied for all the permits, bought all the kitchen equipment and furniture, created the menu, the website, did all the marketing. In the beginning I killed myself doing almost all the back of house work. Hired a server to bring the food from point A to point B. They agreed to do this task for a certain amount of money + tips. They're not entitled to the proceeds of the business besides what they agreed to work for. It's not theirs. It's mine. No matter how much I scale up the principle never changes.

>> No.16094481

>>16094326
If I didn't get to keep the proceeds of my business I never would have taken on the risk and hardship of starting a business. I would have just gotten a job. But there would be no jobs because nobody else would go through that just to give me ALL the proceeds. or as you call it "surplus value" either.

>> No.16095215

It depends on the business model.

>> No.16095527

>>16093047
>voluntary
free market advocates like to pretend everyone is an equal actor when bargaining power ie capital matters

>> No.16095920

>>16093858
>Educate urself.
The absolute irony.