/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.20773347]

Why is the Labor Theory of Value wrong?

[Anonymous No.20773384]

>>20773347
you can repeatedly dig a hole and fill it back up hundreds of times and nobody will pay you to do it

[Anonymous No.20773465]

>>20773347
its not

[Anonymous No.20773552]

>>20773347
supply and demand

[Anonymous No.20773558]

>>20773347
no, but his attempt to remedy it clearly was

[Anonymous No.20773569]

>>20773347
labor gets less valuable as productivity increases, the excess value doesn’t inherently belong to the workers and you can’t change the system as a whole to let them have it, you can only create your own collective business and compete like everyone else

[Anonymous No.20773620]

Its not that his critiques of capitalism were wrong, it's that all of his solutions created systems that produced suffering that were orders of magnitude worse than capitalism.

[Anonymous No.20773628]

Just because you spent a lot of effort and time pushing a turd out it doesn't mean your turd has value

[Anonymous No.20773655]

>>20773620
exactly, im pro free market and im fine with pointing out all the flaws with capitalism, and there are many, i just dont have a better solution, and communism sure isn't it.

[Anonymous No.20773969]

>>20773384
>>20773628
This "gotcha" is as old as the LTV:

The labor theory of value distinguishes between productive labor and unproductive labor. It did not assert that a 'mud pies' made for individual enjoyment had productive labor input, only that if mud pies were a mass-produced commodity competitively supplied by the market, that in the long run payments necessary to induce the supply of mud pies would vary relative to payments necessary to induce the supply of other commodities in proportion to the quantity of labor.

The labor theory of value was a macroeconomic theory which assumes that the commodities under analysis provide enough subjective benefit for their mass production to be profitable.

[Anonymous No.20773975]

>>20773384
digging a hole isn't a commodity so you don't get it lol
>>20773552
do you think Marx didn't know about supply and demand? do you know how much time he spends sucking off Adam Smith and Ricardo??
>>20773569
Marx explains this ib a quite satisfactory way actually. The reason why humans can't still benefit iff the value of increased production is because machines don't produce value, human labour does
>>20773628
Marx speaks of what is called "socially valuable labour" and in some cases, like manure, you can make a profit off shit, so long as it is socially useful

[Anonymous No.20774035]

>>20773384
>Implying digging holes and filling them back up isnt what the capitalist economy currently runs on

>>20773347
The Theory of Value isn't wrong, but it is hard to prove.
It's logically complete, but we live in a world that tries to steer farther and farther from that ideal because it's perversion a source of power.
We struggle more and more to comprehend a world where the Labor Theory of Value dictates economic relationships, because our world becomes further and further entrenched in perceived value and property-based entitlements.
Eventually there will be a collapse and we will have to return to the Labor Theory of Value to return to order.

[Anonymous No.20774078]

Commies go and stay go

[Anonymous No.20774263]

>>20773975
> because machines don't produce value, human labour does

humans are barely involved in the process of value creation, when buttons push themselves humans aren’t even required at all. a miner and a steelworker aren’t entitled to the value of the thousands of tons of steel they produce simply because they operate the excavator and the electric arc furnace.

the capital owner/government aren’t “entitled” to it either, but he/they own the means of production and as a function of competition they easily take the excess value. there is no way to obviate competition in a human system, and as productivity of labor increases human laborers have less and less bargaining power in a competitive system. So they can either compete themselves or they can beg the government to compete on their behalf

[Anonymous No.20774281]

>>20773975
>simping for Marx and spouting a bunch of factually incorrect information

His model literally fails because of supply and demand. It REQUIRES authoritarianism to combat the free market.

If you think a machine that can perform the exact same labor task as a human 100x better produces no value, you are literally a deluded schizo.

[Anonymous No.20774331]

>>20773347
Its not. Every response to ltv relies on woefully misunderstanding it. It doesn't ascribe value to things just because labor is put into them. It doesn't claim that value is "objective". It doesn't conflict with supply and demand. Its not even a very interesting idea.

Marx' critiques of capitalism are mostly right. Recognize it, move on, and make money faggot. The world isn't fair, what a big fucking revelation

[Anonymous No.20774389]

Not only is it right
The predictions derived from it are right
Capitalism will end in our lifetimes

[Anonymous No.20774426]

>>20774263
>humans are barely involved in the process of value creation, when buttons push themselves humans aren’t even required at all.
you realize this is leading to an unemployment crisis, right? there is no longer enough value produced by those workers wages to justify paying them. your comment on just ownership has nothing to do with the LTV so most of this answer is just cope lol
>>20774281
anon, the labour theory of value isn't socialism, in fact socialism is supposed to combat the law of value. I don't think you know what you are talking about

[Anonymous No.20774468]

>>20773975
A hole is a commodity, anon

[Anonymous No.20774521]

>>20774281
This is embodied labor called organic capital in a Marxist reading. Its addressed directly in Capital, and is critical to Marx solution to the tendency of the falling rate of profit problem. Learn what you're critiquing before you critique it you complete fucking moron

[Anonymous No.20774533]

>>20774389
>Capitalism will end in our lifetimes
Fuck yeah, i really can't wait to break my spine for the sake of muh party members instead of muh bossman.

[Anonymous No.20774534]

>>20774281
>If you think a machine that can perform the exact same labor task as a human 100x better produces no value, you are literally a deluded schizo.
>commodity A is a hand carved desk, it took an artisan 200 hours to complete, and is decorated by elaborate carvings
>commodity B is made in an automated factory. the machines completed the desk and carvings in 30 mins
which do you think will be sold for less money? why is the one in the factory so much cheaper than the hand made one? surely an automated factory must put massive amounts of value in!!! the factory desk should be worth 10x more, right??

[Anonymous No.20774557]

>>20773347
What does Klaustrophobic mean?
It means he's afraid of Communism.
Ho ho ho.
Stop it Marx, you're scaring him.

[Anonymous No.20774570]

>>20774426
>The labor theory of value (LTV) is a theory of value that argues that the economic value of a good or service is determined by the total amount of "socially necessary labor" required to produce it.

>In microeconomics, supply and demand is an economic model of price determination in a market. It postulates that, holding all else equal, in a competitive market, the unit price for a particular good, or other traded item such as labor or liquid financial assets, will vary until it settles at a point where the quantity demanded (at the current price) will equal the quantity supplied (at the current price), resulting in an economic equilibrium for price and quantity transacted.

>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia at en.wikipedia.org

fundamentally incompatible

[Anonymous No.20774585]

>>20774426
>you realize this is leading to an unemployment crisis, right?
and? that’s irrelevant to value, the fact that unemployment is skyrocketing demonstrates how little value human labor provides to the system
> just cope lol
??? why does every Marxist have the mentality of a child

[Anonymous No.20774586]

>>20773347
Value is subjective. If you need more explanation then you’re too far gone

[Anonymous No.20774642]

Because you touch yourself at night

[Anonymous No.20774673]

>>20773347

[Anonymous No.20774679]

>>20774534
Factory made items have less overhead cost to produce. The item produced can have the exact same intrinsic value.

"Hand crafted" artisan items have to target a niche market with premium price points to compete with the factory produced items.

[Anonymous No.20774695]

>>20774586
No shit.

[Anonymous No.20774713]

>>20774533
You won't have to
Robots and AI and will do all socially necessary work and you will will consume
Either that or you'll be sent to a concentration camp to die while the super rich do

[Anonymous No.20774728]

>>20774570
>what is exchange value
>what is labour value
anon, have you ever stepped foot in an economics classroom? be honest

[Anonymous No.20774783]

>>20774679
>Factory made items have less overhead cost to produce.
ding ding ding
>The item produced can have the exact same intrinsic value.
Nope, you are thinking of price lol good try anon. The real authentic Piccasso painting is more valuable than the one reproduced in a Chinese factory, regardless if it sold as a forgery for the same price

[Anonymous No.20774790]

>>20774570
>fundamentally incompatible
>why do different commodities have different supply pressure even if they have the same demand

Derp

[Anonymous No.20774794]

>>20773969
>The labor theory of value distinguishes between productive labor and unproductive labor.
That's still labor, don't start with your "socially necessary labor" bullshit.

[Anonymous No.20774829]

>>20773975
>machines don't produce value, human labour does

Yeah that's why so much more value was produced by having black slaves pick cotton instead of having machines to it more efficiently.

Imagine having two identical pairs of Jeans, one with slave picked cotton and one with machine harvested and thinking "The slave jeans are more valuable because humans made this!"

lmao

[Anonymous No.20774849]

>>20774728
>>20774783
Perceived value is not the same thing as intrinsic value (or utility value).

See: >>20774586

Quit simping for Marx, smoothbrain.

[Anonymous No.20774853]

>>20773975
And where does "social usefulness" come from, anon?

[Anonymous No.20774874]

>>20774794
so, just to be clear, you aren't arguing against Marx's LTV, which regards socially necessary labour, you are just arguing against a private definition in your head of what you want the LTV to be

[Anonymous No.20774909]

>>20774713
>Robots and AI
At this point humans are not required anymore, if we really want to make movies.

[Anonymous No.20774931]

>>20774829
based

[Anonymous No.20774953]

>>20774853
good question. right now we let the market decide, which is why Belle can sell bathwater for hundreds of dollars a jar
>>20774849
>Perceived value is not the same thing as intrinsic value (or utility value)
>utility value
Marx literally defined this term, it's called use value, and it not the same as EITHER exchange value or labour value. the air is EXTREMELY useful, without it you would die, and yet how often have you had to pay to breathe?

[Anonymous No.20774993]

>>20774829
are you telling me you don't think a pair of jeans from the 1800's would be worth more than some pair of jeans you would buy at Old Navy would be? Old hand made jeans are literally collectors items worth huge money lmao your example is shit

[Anonymous No.20775009]

>>20774953
**reads communist manifesto**
>Marx literally defined this term, it's called use value, and it not the same as EITHER exchange value or labour value. the air is EXTREMELY useful, without it you would die, and yet how often have you had to pay to breathe?

[Anonymous No.20775044]

>>20774853
It's intersubjective. Socially necessary labor could be building computers or carving giant dongs for wood, it depends entirely on what the society you exist in values.

Yes, this is Marxist. No, Marx never ascribed some magical "objective value" bullshit to commodities.

[Anonymous No.20775055]

>>20775009
he doesn't talk about this in the Manifesto, read the Wage Labour and Capital if you want a good intro to his economics

[Anonymous No.20775077]

>>20773347
it does not account supply / demand and ignores the entire existence of entropy.

[Anonymous No.20775099]

>>20773347
I spent 3 days of hard labor digging a hole in the middle of nowhere and then filling it back up, all for zero purpose.

what is the value of my labor?

[Anonymous No.20775104]

>>20774829
Also super based , if the theory of labor would be right then entrepreneurs job would be to reduce opression since they want to spent the less possible on labor and automating things.

[Anonymous No.20775155]

>>20774953
>>20775044
>"Social usefulness" is determined by the market. But "value" is determined by labor, except that the market has to decide on whether something is socially useful before we can determine whether the labor had value. This is different than the market determining something's value.
Then I can't tell what he's claiming at all.

[Anonymous No.20775190]

>>20775044
>It's intersubjective
So, your gf is not valuable unless everyone is fucking her.

[Anonymous No.20775191]

>>20775055
Its already been proven fundamentally flawed, wrong, and dangerous.

>whoosh

[Anonymous No.20775194]

>>20774874
Marx was a psuedo that kikes used to destroy Russia. His entire ideology was based off of shoddy anthropology under the assumption that early humanity was inherently communal in nature, which was proven to be completely wrong.
The entirety of his findings like "socially necessary labor" is just a cope for poor reasoning, not an explanation. As if the value of something is dependent on the conditions of society as a whole instead of basic supply and demand. The way it was produced is almost irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.20775198]

>>20774585
>why does every Marxist have the mentality of a child

[Anonymous No.20775211]

>>20773347
No mechanism for detecting value. In the capitalist model, the mechanism for value determination are prices.

[Anonymous No.20775219]

>>20773347
You can't just say, "THE WORK I DO HAS VALUE!" or "IT HAS X AMOUNT OF VALUE!"
I mean you can say that, but if nobody agrees with you, does it really matter what you think your work is worth?
"Value" is so relative and subjective, that the only thing that really matters is a specific point in time where two parties--the worker and the customer--both reach an agreement on how much that work was actually worth.
So, the customer must agree that the work you do is worth what you're charging for it, or else they won't wanna buy it, right?
At the same time, the worker must decide that the compensation they receive is worth the time and effort they spend doing the work.
If both do not agree, then you can say whatever you want: "MY WORK IS WORTH THIS MUCH!" but are you actually getting the payments to prove it?

[Anonymous No.20775236]

how does ANYONE think Marx didn't account for the law of supply and demand? is this like the stupidest board on 4chan or something? I think even /pol/fags don't fuck up this bad
So far therefore as the circulation of commodities effects a change in the form alone of their values, and is free from disturbing influences, it must be the exchange of equivalents. Little as Vulgar-Economy knows about the nature of value, yet whenever it wishes to consider the phenomena of circulation in their purity, it assumes that supply and demand are equal, which amounts to this, that their effect is nil. If therefore, as regards the use-values exchanged, both buyer and seller may possibly gain something, this is not the case as regards the exchange-values. Here we must rather say, “Where equality exists there can be no gain.” [5] It is true, commodities may be sold at prices deviating from their values, but these deviations are to be considered as infractions of the laws of the exchange of commodities [6], which in its normal state is an exchange of equivalents, consequently, no method for increasing value.
note how this also explains why a bottle of water might be sold for 100 dollars to a man dying of thirst in a desert without having to take the vulgar economic stance that "a bottle of water is intrinsically worth 100 dollars"

[Anonymous No.20775247]

>>20774993
>are you telling me you don't think a pair of jeans from the 1800's would be worth more than some pair of jeans you would buy at Old Navy would be?

Don't be stupid too. Those are completely different commodities. Instead imagine a machine produced pair of jeans vs the exact same jeans produced today by hand. The value per hour of the human labor is much lower than the tool assisted labor because the tool assisted labor produces far more labor power. This is discussed in the very first chapter of capital vol 1 in terms of linen production. Machines accessible to labor reduce the labor value produced by unassisted labor because labor value is not "objective". Its a reflection of the actual social conditions in which commodities are exchanged.

[Anonymous No.20775289]

>how does ANYONE think Marx didn't account for the law of supply and demand? is this like the stupidest board on 4chan or something? I think even /pol/fags don't fuck up this bad
>So far therefore as the circulation of commodities effects a change in the form alone of their values, and is free from disturbing influences, it must be the exchange of equivalents. Little as Vulgar-Economy knows about the nature of value, yet whenever it wishes to consider the phenomena of circulation in their purity, it assumes that supply and demand are equal, which amounts to this, that their effect is nil. If therefore, as regards the use-values exchanged, both buyer and seller may possibly gain something, this is not the case as regards the exchange-values. Here we must rather say, “Where equality exists there can be no gain.” [5] It is true, commodities may be sold at prices deviating from their values, but these deviations are to be considered as infractions of the laws of the exchange of commodities [6], which in its normal state is an exchange of equivalents, consequently, no method for increasing value.
>note how this also explains why a bottle of water might be sold for 100 dollars to a man dying of thirst in a desert without having to take the vulgar economic stance that "a bottle of water is intrinsically worth 100 dollars"

[Anonymous No.20775296]

>>20775236
>how does ANYONE think Marx didn't account for the law of supply and demand?

[Anonymous No.20775301]

>>20775155
>But "value" is determined by labor
uhhh, labour value is. Marx didn't define one monolithic form of value. value presents itself in several different forms.
>labour value: how much (soc. nec.) labour goes into it
>exchange value: how much you can get for it on the market
>use value: how much utility a commodity actually gives you

[Anonymous No.20775350]

>>20775289
>So far therefore as the circulation of commodities effects a change in the form alone of their values, and is free from disturbing influences, it must be the exchange of equivalents. Little as Vulgar-Economy knows about the nature of value, yet whenever it wishes to consider the phenomena of circulation in their purity, it assumes that supply and demand are equal, which amounts to this, that their effect is nil. If therefore, as regards the use-values exchanged, both buyer and seller may possibly gain something, this is not the case as regards the exchange-values. Here we must rather say, “Where equality exists there can be no gain.” [5] It is true, commodities may be sold at prices deviating from their values, but these deviations are to be considered as infractions of the laws of the exchange of commodities [6], which in its normal state is an exchange of equivalents, consequently, no method for increasing value.
read it faggot lmao>>20775247
>The value per hour of the human labor is much lower than the tool assisted labor because the tool assisted labor produces far more labor power
not quite true. yes, it produces more value per hour, obviously, but not per commodity which is what is at stake. this is a retarded point, no one automated a factory and streamlines a workforce so they can raise costs, it's done to lower them

[Anonymous No.20775358]

>>20775236
Nice cope, Marx was retard and using his made up definitions with no real world use is a massive cope

[Anonymous No.20775402]

>>20775358
>Marx is a retard because he said X
>Marx actually says the opposite of X
>No one actually uses Marx's definitions when they critique Marx's definitions
you're right but I don't think you're right in the way you want to be...

[Anonymous No.20775416]

>>20775236
>note how this also explains why a bottle of water might be sold for 100 dollars to a man dying of thirst in a desert without having to take the vulgar economic stance that "a bottle of water is intrinsically worth 100 dollars"
This is actually a pretty good point, but I would add at that point that the dying man would agree that the water is worth that much. If the person selling the water said it was $100 but the nobody in the desert agrees (perhaps each has his own water bottle, or even perhaps he would rather die than be price-gouged, suicide as a form of protest to make a political or economic statement?) then it really doesn't matter what the water-seller says the water is worth. It's just his opinion.

"Value" is just an opinion. It only matters when two parties (buyer and seller) share the same opinion regarding "value," but even when they agree, it's still just two parties with the same opinion.

[Anonymous No.20775451]

>>20775190

She's not economically valuable unless theres demand to fuck her. Doesn't matter if she's actually getting fucked or not. But if she were an easily reproducible commodity, other producers would step in provide supply to meet that demand. Competition between those producers would reduce the exchange price to roughly the cost of production, dropping rate of profit to 0 or near 0.

Unless the land and machinery required to produce her is limited and saturated, in which case the owners of that land/machinery can charge a premium to labor, which becomes the rate of profit

[Anonymous No.20775471]

>>20775301
Hey, look at this rock. I put in 500 labor hours of walking to find this rock.
It's actually a spiritually charged rock that contains a soul, very rare and valuable. You can summon the soul and get 3 wishes! Trust me. VERY VALUABLE.
You can also use this rock to break things, start a fire, defend yourself, etc. Essentially valuable for survival.

Now you must pay me $15,000 for this rock.
500 hours x $20/h of precious labor = $10000 + $2500 for spirit + $2500 for utility.

Marx demands you pay me now. Do it. I did the work.

[Anonymous No.20775519]

>>20775471
>You can also use this rock to break things, start a fire, defend yourself, etc. Essentially valuable for survival
It's also socially valuable, lol.

[Anonymous No.20775525]

>>20775402
>NOOOOO MARX WAS A GOOD BOY HE ACTUALLY SAID SUPPLY AND DEMAND IN HIS BOOK EVEN IF IT'S AT ODDS WITH HIS IDEA OF SOCIALLY NECESSARY LABOR
Go back to watching Vaush nigger

[Anonymous No.20775556]

>>20775416
>"Value" is just an opinion
Marx basically abandons the notion of a general value and instead focuses on more specific kinds of value to get away from subjectivity (he instead puts that into the category of social necessity). exchange value is exactly as you put it, a contractual agreement between two parties.
>>20775471
Marx would suggest a commodites exchange value would tend towards the average amount of labour needed to produce a commodity. So, baring any weird shit like you actually convincing people it's a sacred rock, the exchange value of the commodity will tend towards THE AVERAGE AMOUNT of labour necessary to make/get that commodity, which, when it comes to the rock, is probably all of 2 mins worth of work

[Anonymous No.20775580]

>>20775350
Value per commodity stays the same, assuming there's still demand for the commodity. My point was just that "but pants used to be made better" is a fucking stupid response to a stupid chalenge when machinery is explicitly described as reducing unaided labor power in the very first fucking chapter of capital

[Anonymous No.20775593]

>>20775525
>NOOOOOOO MARX COULDN'T SAY THOSE THINGS BECAUSE PRAGER U TOLD ME SOMETHING ELSE
also
>implying Vaush has read Marx
kek

[Anonymous No.20775611]

>>20775556
I'm waiting for my payment for the 500 hours of labor + utility and social value.

If you don't pay me NOW I will rise up against you and forcibly take what you own. As is the Marx way.

[Anonymous No.20775651]

>>20775580
>"but pants used to be made better"
did you reply to the wrong person? I was pointing out that the example of hand picked cotton slave pants was a bad example because they WOULD be worth more, regardless of the quality. even as a museum piece they would be worth more money than your average pair of jeans. it's just a stupid gotcha that doesn't even bring up the problem it wants to lmao

[Anonymous No.20775685]

>>20775301
Okay. These are just definitions, though. What's the actual "labor theory of value" then? The way I understand it, and presumably the way other anons responding here understand it, is something like the Wikipedia definition: "a theory of value that argues that the economic value of a good or service is determined by the total amount of 'socially necessary labor' required to produce it." What does labor value *mean* if it doesn't influence exchange value?

[Anonymous No.20775706]

>>20775611
I'm waiting for someone who knows what they are talking about to argue against the LTV. (want to know a secret? I think the LTV is wrong! I have read enough Marx to know why that is the case. You fags just keep repeating meme gotchas that out you as never having read Marx)

[Anonymous No.20775768]

>>20775593
>>20775402
>>20775350
>>20775301
>>20775236
Says nothing about supply and demand nigger, now kys

[Anonymous No.20775783]

>>20775706
>(want to know a secret? I think the LTV is wrong! I have read enough Marx to know why that is the case. You fags just keep repeating meme gotchas that out you as never having read Marx)
Okay why do you think its wrong?

[Anonymous No.20775835]

>>20773347
Because it assumes symmetric relationships and information. Knowing where to distribute what resources is often more valuable than the willingness to perform more directly observable forms of labor.

Though perhaps Marxists will think that doing the research is labor. Even in that case, the point stands that centralized economies are inefficient because they can't adjust for what they don't know, and a classless, stateless society as Marx envisioned is politically unstable.

[Anonymous No.20775874]

>>20775768
Dude supply and demand is meme shit for five year olds and you're looking at a wikipedia page

[Anonymous No.20775901]

>>20775685

It influences, but doesn't determine exchange value. You can buy a potato for $10000, so in one off exchanges, the exchange value can and sometimes does radically diverge from labor value. However, in an actual robust market with competing producers price of commodities gets driven towards the cost of production

[Anonymous No.20775913]

>>20775685
>What does labor value *mean* if it doesn't influence exchange value?
it does. what Marx would say is that exchange value will always tend towards labour value given both A) enough time, and B) a free market.

Say you make hats. Costs 5 dollars overhead to make each hat which you sell at 10 dollars. If another factory can make that hat for 5 and sell for 9, you lose your sales. So, you both push prices down until eventually you settle on 6 dollars each. The next day, another factory opens that is highly automated, has a fraction of the employees as the others, and only costs 2 dollars to make a hat, and they sell it at 4. Did the automated factory increase the value of the hats? No, it decreased them, and pushes the other factories to either automate and compete or give up. as long as people are competing, they will push those prices down as close to costs as possible to beat the other people in the market, meaning exchange value will tend towards labour value. But obviously there are plenty of other tendencies which obscure this, like supply and demand

[Anonymous No.20775952]

>>20775768
I quoted Marx directly, all you have is a wiki intro lmao do you ever get embarrassed arguing about something you are totally uneducated in?
>>20775350

[Anonymous No.20775981]

>>20775783
it doesn't take sign value into account for starters

[Anonymous No.20775986]

>>20775835
Pretty much this

[Anonymous No.20776055]

>>20775835
>Knowing where to distribute
LTV isn't socialism lmao LTV operates under capitalism

[Anonymous No.20776062]

>>20775236
>note how this also explains why a bottle of water might be sold for 100 dollars to a man dying of thirst in a desert without having to take the vulgar economic stance that "a bottle of water is intrinsically worth 100 dollars"

Now you're getting it. If I was in the desert dying of thirst too, I might not even sell it for that much.

[Anonymous No.20776214]

>>20775981
Actually a good criticism, finally. Its not a substantial one in that it doesn't undermine Marx' actual critique, and you can't really blame someone writing prior to radio and signs as mass produced commodities, but at least youre right. Marx completely leaves out any discussion of signification value which makes social value held by e.g. popular youtubers impossible to discuss.

[Anonymous No.20776221]

>>20775981

Can you please elaborate on this for me? I have never read Marx and am new to economics.

[Anonymous No.20776304]

>>20776055
I'm aware. Pic related used it first.
But today it's used by socialists to mean labor is THE value in things, which is emphatically not true. Natural resources exist in which countries can live off of and get rich for very little labor.

[Anonymous No.20776316]

>>20775913
I see. This seems unfalsifiable though, like it's still not saying anything. Labor costs are reflected in the supply curve in the first place. If the raw material costs decreased, but the labor costs stayed the same, the supply curve would shift in the same way that it would if the labor costs per hat decreased, and it would have the same effect on the price.

[Anonymous No.20776393]

>>20776221
It's a Baudrillard reference. Basically, it doesn't take into account that certain labor might be valued more or less at exchange even after markets settle, not because of the quality of the product produced, but rather because of who is doing the producing. Its not that important of a critique because it still doesn't matter who's making oil, buildings, metals, etc... the commodities that actually make the world run are basically unimpacted by sign value. However, it explains how one twitter influencer can make the exact same post as another and be valued at 10× the other. In the post-radio era, images have also been commodified

[Anonymous No.20776518]

>>20776316
Supply costs are part of labor costs for the purpose of ltv (in Marx, ricardo, smith, basically anyone who's talking about ltv)

Its reflected in the supply curve because it's the same thing for competitively produced commodities. Ltv is a dramatically dull idea.

[Anonymous No.20776541]

>>20776393
from now on, the only people who can post in this thread must have read Simulcra and Simulation at least 3 times so we can jerk ourselves off over hyperreality and that the gulf war never happened

[Anonymous No.20776568]

>>20773347
the logical flaw is immediate - they assume the capitalist's effort to organize people isn't labor. Without skilled managent, the entire enterprise would fail. A worker providing sweat is only able to produce value because the enterprise exists at all. Otherwise he would be toiling in the fields

[Anonymous No.20776631]

>>20776316
Yes, but the sticking point here is the Marx felt that all raw materials are only valorized (made more valuable) after labour has been applied. It doesn't matter if you own 100 tons of raw material you got for cheap, without someone to transport it, feed it into the machines, quality check, ship it, ect. there is no new value produced in your raw materials. And Marx didn't think that was the only way to make profit either. If you buy wool cheap and sell it high, you made profit, you just didn't create any new value (i.e. labour value), only profit through that commodities exchange value (i.e. you turned money into more money)

[Anonymous No.20776738]

>>20773347
Capital increases the value of labour

[Anonymous No.20776772]

>>20776221
this anon did a pretty good job
>>20776393
imagine an antique table. it might not be the nicest table, or the most functional, it might be a shitty table, but if it was owned by King Henry the VIIIth, it might be much more valuable than the nicer, more functional, high quality table. This type of value can't simply be reduced to labour or utility, there is a certain signification it gives which other tables simply don't

[Anonymous No.20776846]

So.......... Marx was right then?

[Anonymous No.20776946]

>>20773347
All theories are wrong, but some are useful. Market supply and demand is a useful theory given it allows us to simply explain why things are priced differently and allow those who wosh to sell goods to optimize profit while minimizing risk. Classical physics allows us to explain how most things move on earth. Both are wrong, given they cannot explain certain things (changes in utility due to paychology on the former, things that are real big or real small on the later.) LTV is not simple nor is it a particular powerful model. The only thing it really does is justify surplus labor theft that communists like to spout on about. Its a pretty useless theory unless you really are looking for justifications of your beliefs.

[Anonymous No.20777015]

>>20776846
Mostly

[Anonymous No.20777020]

>>20776946
>Its a pretty useless theory
You know Adam Smith, the father of economics, based his theory on labour value? It's the definitive classical economic model. It wasn't invented by or for socialists, Marx just co-oped the analysis and ran with it

[Anonymous No.20777035]

>>20776738
isn't it the opposite? technoogy has made labor cheaper. 1 guy can do what you needed dozens or hundreds of men for

[Anonymous No.20777059]

>the labor of 8 hours is more valuable than 2 hours of ideas

Yeah, that's why oxen are more valuable than a software engineer

[Anonymous No.20777080]

>>20777035
you are right, but that would imply Marx wasn't wrong, therefore the opposite must be the case. ontology via the negation of Marx

[Anonymous No.20777081]

It's wrong because it leads to structures that reliably fail

If it doesn't work it doesn't work

[Anonymous No.20777107]

>>20777059
>Marx, the guy who spent his entire life performing intellectual labour, didn't consider intellectual labour real labour
seriously anons, where do you get this shit?

[Anonymous No.20777127]

>>20777081
Smith was foundational to capitalism, why did capitalism work anon? Surely both liberalism and capitalism should have failed as they were both based on the LTV

[Anonymous No.20777153]

>>20777107

His own stupid theory and propositions. He can't quantify what the "owner of capital", the entrepreneur has contributed to the enterprise. Therefore he can't arbitrarily assert what the laborer is owed. The laborer is owed what the laborer can demand, and that's frequently a pitiful sum because it's work literal animals can do.

[Anonymous No.20777194]

All economic theories are utter horseshit lol
Can't believe there are midwit pseuds nowadays parroting this "scientific" and "rational" economic bullshit when it's been disproven countless times and obedience to theories has ruined societies. But keep going, fucktards, I'm sure you'll finally figure it out

[Anonymous No.20777200]

>>20777153
>His own stupid theory and propositions
oh good, hook me a quote

[Anonymous No.20777212]

>>20777020
Smith set up the foundations, but it was later discarded because its a faulty anglo-germanic assumption. Its like you said Marx took an idea from Smith that was less then useful and came from cultural bias (anglo-german assumption that labor is a good into itself) and made a very complex but not powerful model. Smith was the first to take steps in the right direction but his model is pretty stupid when compared to more modern theories that followed (and were not Marx or from the new school.)

[Anonymous No.20777251]

>>20777200

Do you think I'm going to take this bait? No I'm not arguing his entire book line by line. Get a job retard. The only truth in economics is supply and demand, everything else is contextually-limited horseshit.

[Anonymous No.20777255]

>>20774829
The value a machine produces is the value the creators of the machine produce

[Anonymous No.20777305]

LTV was a footnote in Wealth of Nations btw. It's not foundational to Smith's ideas, and was only used when discussing the concepts of exchange and use value.

You could be forgiven for being a Marxist in the early 1900s. Being a Marxists today requires you to willfully ignore it's failures over the last century. The only thing he was kind of right about is the negative impact of rent-seekers and speculators. Pic related is someone who's ideas HAVE seen success when they've been tried, and so far haven't been tried on a large scale.

[Anonymous No.20777353]

>>20777305
How is Henry George so fuckin based

[Anonymous No.20777395]

>>20777251
>I got this idea from his writings
>do you have a quote?
>I am not going to argue the entire book line by line
I just wanted one quote that gave you the idea Marx didn't believe in intellectual labour

[Anonymous No.20777471]

>>20777212
so then those foundations should have lead to structures that reliably fail according to this anon. so should Locke's theory of liberalism. the American revolution should have been a total failure according to this anon
>>20777081

[Anonymous No.20777472]

>>20777035
It's not just technology, for instance if I decide to start making shoes at home I will first have to invest in all the equipment. But additionally I'll need a network to advertise and sell them.

But if I work for a capitalist, my labour can be turned into value more directly as the means of selling that shoe exist within the company

[Anonymous No.20777513]

>>20773347
It isn't.

[Anonymous No.20777529]

>>20777395

If he believed in intellectual labor, he would understand why "owners of capital" got to where they area. Inheritance might be a sore subject, but self-made men cannot be. They simply understand what laborer plebs don't and their organizations create value on a scale far beyond their two hands.

[Anonymous No.20777567]

>>20777472
are you arguing for or against the LTV I can't tell

[Anonymous No.20777617]

>>20773347
>go inna desert
>start digging hole in soft sand
>hole keeps filling back up
>nobody asked for hole
>keep digging every working day for 30 years
>???
>"I deserve to be paid a living wage for my work"

That's why.

[Anonymous No.20777624]

>>20773969

>Not real communism

[Anonymous No.20777652]

>>20777529
He wrote an entire book series explaining how the owners of capital got to where they are lol. you can just admit you don't have a quote because you have never read Marx, it's okay, there are probably only 3 people ITT who have

[Anonymous No.20777657]

>>20777471
>One assumption that is rather isolated in Smith should lead to its complete colapse
Don't be disinguine, if you've read smith you'll know that his theory of labor is 1 isolated and 2 is not what modern economics use. The breakthrough idea in smith is the invisible hand and how economization is best optimized by non involvement which is why he is one of the first modern economists. I'd like to target your next point but that is a redharing if I've ever seen one.

[Anonymous No.20777692]

>>20773969
Problem is who decides what has "benefit", what is "productive labor", etc.

[Anonymous No.20777734]

>>20777617
Marx is talking about labour value as the congealed labour time in the form of a valorized commodity. the hole digging example doesn't even regard a commodity, just abstract labour.

[Anonymous No.20777810]

>>20777652

And you claim to have read them, but can't argue on the basis of his logic or reason? Typical, consoomer midwit.

[Anonymous No.20777815]

>>20773969
>The labor theory of value distinguishes between productive labor and unproductive labor.
Please explain how you objectively distinguish between productive labor and unproductive labor.
>The labor theory of value was a macroeconomic theory which assumes that the commodities under analysis provide enough subjective benefit for their mass production to be profitable.
The very fact you have to assume, and can't provide an objective measure for what is and isn't productive, is proof it's BS.

[Anonymous No.20777824]

>>20777734
Holes are very often necessary things to make.

What determines how useful a hole is, is demand.

[Anonymous No.20777870]

>>20777657
>his theory of labor is isolated
>The breakthrough idea in smith is the invisible hand
anon, he never even used the term "the invisible hand" in WoN. he talks of "an invisible hand" ONCE lmao. the invisible hand is much more important to his moral theory than his economic theory, it's the definition of an isolated throwaway part of his economic theory. seriously, has anyone on /biz/ studied economics at a post-secondary level? I am getting concerned here

[Anonymous No.20777958]

>>20777824
white holes are in demand, by black men with big dicks

[Anonymous No.20777974]

>>20777824
Oh, Marx isn't talking about use value when it comes to the LTV anon, I mean that's part of the equation, but really he's talking about labour value. common mistake

[Anonymous No.20778059]

>>20777015
Except for the actual mechanism of value determination. Under capitalism, the mechanism is pricing. Under Marxism, the mechanism is nothing.

[Anonymous No.20778143]

>>20773347
Since Robinson Crusoe’s experiences are a favourite theme with political economists,30 let us take a look at him on his island. Moderate though he be, yet some few wants he has to satisfy, and must therefore do a little useful work of various sorts, such as making tools and furniture, taming goats, fishing and hunting. Of his prayers and the like we take no account, since they are a source of pleasure to him, and he looks upon them as so much recreation. In spite of the variety of his work, he knows that his labour, whatever its form, is but the activity of one and the same Robinson, and consequently, that it consists of nothing but different modes of human labour. Necessity itself compels him to apportion his time accurately between his different kinds of work. Whether one kind occupies a greater space in his general activity than another, depends on the difficulties, greater or less as the case may be, to be overcome in attaining the useful effect aimed at. This our friend Robinson soon learns by experience, and having rescued a watch, ledger, and pen and ink from the wreck, commences, like a true-born Briton, to keep a set of books. His stock-book contains a list of the objects of utility that belong to him, of the operations necessary for their production; and lastly, of the labour time that definite quantities of those objects have, on an average, cost him. All the relations between Robinson and the objects that form this wealth of his own creation, are here so simple and clear as to be intelligible without exertion, even to Mr. Sedley Taylor. And yet those relations contain all that is essential to the determination of value.

[Anonymous No.20778182]

>>20777529
>>20777652
Pretty funny comment when around a third of capital vol 1 is dedicated to discussing the historical basis of primitive accumulation, and is implications. Granted, that comes at the end of the book, not the beginning, so if you read the first 3 pages and decide to make your entire argument about assine responses to the LTV that are addressed in the next 50 you probably wouldn't be aware that capital is intended as a historically driven critique of Ricardo, not a regurgitation

[Anonymous No.20778231]

>>20777870
>anon, he never even used the term "the invisible hand" in WoN

Okay thanks anon you made me have to open up my copy again because of how fucking stupid this sounds. Congrats you win the retard award.

>"As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." (Book 4, Chapter 2)

Are you stupid? No seriously, this is what I hate about those who are academics who suck Marx off, you come off as elitist and smug at the same time, all while everyone else looks at you and says how can you be for the working class while being such a cunt. Furthermore, YES of course its more important to his moral then economic theory, it just so happens that the take away out of history from his ideas are mainly, excluding the new school, related to his ideas stated in within his moral framework (which to this day governs most economics) rather then his other works which to this day outside of your circles are seen as useless.

[Anonymous No.20778276]

>>20778231
>anon, he never even used the term "the invisible hand" in WoN. he talks of "an invisible hand" ONCE lmao
>quotes the one time he uses the term "an invisible hand" in WoN
wow, got me

[Anonymous No.20778387]

>>20778059
Under Marxist THEORY there's no mechanism.
In Marxist PRACTICE there's absolutely a mechanism, whatever the people in power decide.

[Anonymous No.20778434]

>>20773347
It doesn't account for risk, subjective value, and things like that.

[Anonymous No.20778481]

>>20778387

I'm going to create an economic theory. It will be called "The Perfect Theory", in which the state decides what everyone should earn, it will be perfect, and assign their true worth. I leave the actual implementation of such a perfect system as an exercise for the reader, you're welcome for doing all the legwork.

[Anonymous No.20778515]

>>20778059
This post isn't even wrong. It's so uninformed that it's too incoherent to be wrong. Marx' primary focus of study is Capitalism. LTV, what this thread is about, describes a phenomena of Capitalism. Your comment is the equivalent of saying something like

>Except for the actual mechanism of reproduction. Under life, the mechanism is semen. Under biology its nothing.

[Anonymous No.20778534]

>>20778434
What about the proletarian who dies in the factory? Oh yes, that's no real risk, it is not financial.

[Anonymous No.20778570]

>>20778231
Furthermore I have no idea why you are hung up debating Smith? He is only a note in history books, modern micro and marco economics read him in undergrad and never go back. Similar to your constant need to GOTCHA within the thread. This is a semantic dance that only someone high off their own ego does. Who cares if its a "the" or "an"? Seriously why deflect this hard from Marx to Smith? Marx's model is useless, Smith's is the oldest and also is rather impractical. Can we move on from fart sniffing now? I doubt it though given your propensity to being a cunt.

[Anonymous No.20778573]

>>20778515
Then how come nominally marxist societies do away with the pricing and market mechanisms? it's like, the first thing that happens.

[Anonymous No.20778576]

>>20773347
Austrian modle.

[Anonymous No.20778597]

>>20773975
>because machines don't produce value, human labour does
Retarded.

[Anonymous No.20778684]

>>20778276
>>20778570
So to repeat my argument which you still have yet to address and have constantly deflected, all models are wrong, some are useful. LoV is not useful, nor is it parsimonious as you have seen by everyone's mischaracterization of it within the thread. Why use something so dated, weak, and complex when there are models which have a higher degree of explanatory and predictive power along with are much more parsimonious?

[Anonymous No.20778692]

>>20778534
That's a risk too of course.

[Anonymous No.20778696]

>>20774426
>you realize this is leading to an unemployment crisis, right?
Next time tell your fucking parents to save money to get your kid an education to keep up.
What? You thought coal mining was going to last forever?

[Anonymous No.20778724]

>>20774426
>in fact socialism is supposed to combat the law of value.
Socialism is redistribution of excess wealth.

[Anonymous No.20778731]

>>20778573
>What is Critique of the Gotha program.

[Anonymous No.20778748]

>>20774534
Price per unit.
Get a job.

[Anonymous No.20778779]

>>20778570
you jumped into me picking a bone with this comment
>>20777081
by pointing out that all economic and liberal theories find their foundations in versions of the LTV and you sperged out about how Smith doesn't actually believe in the LTV he believes in an abstract term he uses ONCE in his magnum opus. also, I'm going to call it "the invisible hand", a shibboleth that makes any Smith scholar cringe into their skin so deep they emerge out their own asshole. I just don't understand why people argue this shit if they haven't even read the material at hand then get OFFENDED when someone who wasted their time and money studying this shit calls them out. like, if you were spouting shit about quantum mechanics, and some anon who studies physics comes in and pointed out that Schodinger's theory didn't work like that, would you get this defensive? probably not. but when it comes to political and economic theory every retard with an internet connection pretends they are gods gift to theory

[Anonymous No.20778792]

>>20774783
Or I get the picture off the internet for free.
Your theories are stupid and beaten by lazy logic.

[Anonymous No.20778805]

>>20778731
Replacing money with labor vouchers hasn't worked out in practice, though.

[Anonymous No.20778809]

>>20774783
>Nope, you are thinking of price lol good try anon.
A price is the quantity of payment or compensation given by one party to another in return for one unit of goods or services. A price is influenced by production costs, supply of the desired item, and demand for the product. A price may be determined by a monopolist or may be imposed on the firm by market conditions. Wikipedia

[Anonymous No.20778840]

>>20774783
verb
1.
estimate the monetary worth of (something).
"his estate was valued at $45,000"
HURR DURR NOUNS AND VERBS WAT DAT.

[Anonymous No.20778878]

>>20778573
How come poop is brown? What people who call themselves Marxists do has nothing to do with LTV. What Marx advocated be done also has nothing to do with LTV.

Aditionally, The history of Marxist movements is much more complex than that, and most didn't "do away with pricing and market mechanisms". But I'm not going to get into that with someone this smoothbrained.

[Anonymous No.20778904]

>>20775451
>She's not economically valuable unless theres demand to fuck her.
There is, she produces children who grow to adults.
NEXT!

[Anonymous No.20778919]

>>20775451
Raising children can be expensive.

[Anonymous No.20778923]

>>20778878
So...what's the Marxist alternative to the price mechanism? Is there even one?

[Anonymous No.20778967]

For an example of labour in common or directly associated labour, we have no occasion to go
back to that spontaneously developed form which we find on the threshold of the history of all
civilised races. We have one close at hand in the patriarchal industries of a peasant family, that
produces corn, cattle, yarn, linen, and clothing for home use. These different articles are, as
regards the family, so many products of its labour, but as between themselves, they are not
commodities. The different kinds of labour, such as tillage, cattle tending, spinning, weaving and
making clothes, which result in the various products, are in themselves, and such as they are,
direct social functions, because functions of the family, which, just as much as a society based on
the production of commodities, possesses a spontaneously developed system of division of
labour. The distribution of the work within the family, and the regulation of the labour time of the
several members, depend as well upon differences of age and sex as upon natural conditions
varying with the seasons. The labour power of each individual, by its very nature, operates in this
case merely as a definite portion of the whole labour power of the family, and therefore, the
measure of the expenditure of individual labour power by its duration, appears here by its very
nature as a social character of their labour.

[Anonymous No.20778973]

>>20778792
try to sell that picture at an art gallery anon, I bet they will treat it differently than they would the real thing
>>20778809
d-do you think Marx was using the definitions from wikipedia? imagine that lmao. watch, I'm going to btfo Einstiens theory of relativity

Definition of energy
1a : dynamic quality narrative energy
b : the capacity of acting or being active intellectual energy
c : a usually positive spiritual force the energy flowing through all people

[Anonymous No.20778978]

>>20775874
>Gets proven wrong.
>Whines.
DA COMRADE COMMINISM.
Lol, suppy and demand is a thing, shit is in large supply, little demand.

[Anonymous No.20779012]

> When Biz is too fucking cooked to realize Marx had more in common with Adam Smith and generally agreed with him in many respects concerning economic growth and development that they can't wrap their heads around LTV because of all of the neoliberal elite propaganda designed to maintain their status and power at the expense of the masses who eat up their lies

[Anonymous No.20779021]

>>20778904
demand for producing children with her is a demand to fuck her

[Anonymous No.20779039]

>>20778805
Yet. But it wouldn't be a state issued voucher, more like a blockchain and derivates thing.

[Anonymous No.20779055]

>>20776316
>I see. This seems unfalsifiable though, like it's still not saying anything
Christ you're fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.20779095]

>>20776631
>doesn't matter if you own 100 tons of raw material you got for cheap,
Untill war comes along and they shoot up on value.
You know like the steel market.
Why are all of you stupid?

[Anonymous No.20779102]

increíble que con un thread tan choto tengas tantas respuestas

[Anonymous No.20779111]

>>20779012
We've been over this, I have no idea why you need to make an appeal to Smith to boost Marx's credibility when Smith's ideas are pretty redundant/dated in most instances. He was the first, and like Aristotle when it comes to physics is wrong in most instances.

[Anonymous No.20779129]

>>20779039
I mean, it'd be nice to get a really comprehensive list of labor used, but does making it more granular make it work?

[Anonymous No.20779131]

>>20773347
I'm still waiting for anyone in this thread to explain how to objectively determine whether labor is "unproductive" vs "productive" or "socially necessary" or whatever your particular phrasing of that nonsense is.

[Anonymous No.20779157]

>>20779111
>wrong
So that I don't get memed on via semantics wrong isn't the right term I should have has lower predictive power.

[Anonymous No.20779172]

>>20776846
No.>>20776946
>supply and demand is a useful theory
Supply and demand isn't a fucking theory.
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
Fact vs theory.
Did you niggers learn anything in school?

[Anonymous No.20779221]

>>20779131
They can't. Look at his flippant response to my post here.
>>20778434
>>20778534
I think they care less about answering these questions, and more about raging against the current system.

[Anonymous No.20779237]

>>20778978
>supply and demand can effect the price of a commodity
>therefore the value of a commodity comes from supply and demand
so you see why this argument is invalid? not just unsound, but totally invalid? because you haven't demonstrated that the price of a commodity is the same thing as the value of the commodity. even if you fix the syllogism, and say price/price, you still need to demonstrate that price is ONLY determined by supply and demand, and devoid of other economic factors, otherwise you haven't even shown that price comes from supply and demand but only that price is effected by supply and demand

[Anonymous No.20779267]

>>20779095
why can't you read? the last sentence of the post you replied to explains that

[Anonymous No.20779292]

>>20779131
If it's not tradable it's not socially necessary. The hole you dig on the ground is not tradable. Therefore it is not socially necessary.
The field of application of the law of value is limited to new output by producers of traded, reproducible labour-products,
Marx's goal was not to subsume the price of unreproducible objects under the law of value. He did not do this because of the simple reason that the law of value has to explain precisely the laws of human productive activities. In his theory of value, Marx does not treat the value of products which 'cannot be reproduced by labor, such as antiques and works of art by certain masters, etc.'"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_value#Field_of_application

[Anonymous No.20779316]

>>20779172
>Supply and demand isn't a fucking theory.
Everything is a theory, reality can't be accurately determined by man due to us having to assume space, time, unity, ect. Read into Kantian Transcendental idealism, otherwise my ontology will sound rather weird to you.
>Did you niggers learn anything in school?
Sorry pls no bully fren.

[Anonymous No.20779333]

(...)
By the way trade is a degenerate socially necessary labor.

[Anonymous No.20779340]

>>20778923
The answer to this is going to depend on which Marxist you're talking to. As for what Marx actually thought, he critiques money and markets in the manifesto, then after the paris commune of 1871 issues a new forward that critiques his own original position, and then in CotGP comes out explicitly in support of a system that distributes goods/services though pricing. His position on pricing in some proposed future system is fluid through his life, and the positions among marxists and anarchists are hetrogenous.

But again, this has nothing to do with LTV, which is what you were actually responding to. Might as well argue that Marx liked the wrong soccer team, it would be just as relevant.

[Anonymous No.20779341]

>>20779237
Saying that price and value are disconnected is just the same as saying that value is subjective, which is true by default. Which is why we have prices to boil value determinations into a simple question: is X worth $Y *to me?*

[Anonymous No.20779386]

I mean produce in order to trade, is degenerated socially necessary labor.

[Anonymous No.20779410]

>>20779341
Value is marginally subjective.

[Anonymous No.20779436]

>>20779340
Ok so, the answer is muddled, at best. And at least some Marxists want to replace a system that is functional, however minimally, with that? I can see where the global revolution has fallen into some stumbling points, at least.

[Anonymous No.20779472]

>>20779341
they aren't disconnected in LTV though. this is one of the issues I am having ITT, you aren't actually arguing against Marx because you have no idea what Marx said. I already explained this earlier
>>20775913
seriously I feel like I wandered into a highschool libertarian club or something, why are you arguing against a theory if you haven't even tried to understand it?

[Anonymous No.20779480]

>>20779292
>If it's not tradable it's not socially necessary. The hole you dig on the ground is not tradable. Therefore it is not socially necessary.
Please define what "tradable" means as you're using it.
>Marx does not treat the value of products which 'cannot be reproduced by labor, such as antiques and works of art by certain masters, etc.'"
Oh wow look at that a completely subjective loop hole that you can just use as a cop out any time your gay ass theory meets a situation it doesn't work in what a shock.

[Anonymous No.20779501]

>>20779472
>they aren't disconnected in LTV though

How can that be if labor occasionally reduces value rather than adds to it?

[Anonymous No.20779531]

>>20774829
>"The slave jeans are more valuable because humans made this!"

you know that handmande hipster stuff is sold for 5-10x more right?

[Anonymous No.20779538]

>>20779480
>Please define what "tradable" means
anon if you need a hole in your back yard, do you try and find a hole dealer? ask your neighbor if you could borrow one of their?

[Anonymous No.20779559]

>>20779538
I could pay somebody to dig a hole for me.

[Anonymous No.20779582]

>>20779501
what do you mean by labour here, give an example. Marx isn't talking specifically about how much work someone puts into something, he's talking about the average amount of necessary labour time needed to produce a commodity

[Anonymous No.20779603]

>>20779436
>with that
With what?

>muddled
There simply is not an answer because marxism isn't a religion with a single infallible holy book dictating how you should feel about everything.

[Anonymous No.20779622]

>>20779603
Sure feels like a religion sometimes.

[Anonymous No.20779625]

>>20779501
Also in your hat thought experiment, you're kind of ignoring the growth in value to the system at large: many more of us might be able to have hats, because many of us might have been unable to afford them at 10 or even 6 dollars. Which makes the collective system wealthier than it otherwise would have been, assuming you define wealth as the number of options available to you.

[Anonymous No.20779637]

>>20779559
yes, this is purchasing someones labour power to produce a hole

[Anonymous No.20779645]

>>20775556
>e value would tend towards the average amount of labour needed to produce a commodity.

proven wrong by any market. You can find most things that cost 100$ for also 10 000$ or more, that are somehow the same time consuming to produce

coffee brewers, clothes, jewelry, glasses or watches or chairs

[Anonymous No.20779677]

>>20779538
That's not a definition. The reason I'm specifically asking for a definition is that the more I look at this theory, the more it seems like a bunch of subjective cop-out-clauses strung together in order to avoid having to actually present any sort of theory which can be objectively measured as true or false.
So please, objectively define "tradable".

[Anonymous No.20779680]

>>20779625
Marx would agree but would say wealth isn't the same thing as value. he says capitalism is the most productive system ever and has produced the most wealth of any historical stage we have ever seen

[Anonymous No.20779684]

>>20779637
You could also trade the land which has the hole one it. Or I guess transport the hole along with the parts of land around it if you really need that exact hole for some reason.

[Anonymous No.20779701]

>>20779645
what do you mean anon? do you mean some products are overpriced?

[Anonymous No.20779708]

>>20779480
LTV doesn't apply to the work of art you spend 50 hours to make, and are disapointed because you tryed to sell it on the bric a brac or on ebay, and only got 20 bucks.
It is about new output by producer or tradable, reproducible goods.
That means the daily items everybody use on a daily basis. The very item you have on your desktop right now.
LTV doesn't apply on artificial value either, artificial scarcity, like monopolies, or luxury items, which sells deliberately items way above the production cost, in order to maintain the "prestige" of the item.

[Anonymous No.20779714]

>>20779622
Marx own3d

[Anonymous No.20779725]

>>20779714
Yeah

[Anonymous No.20779743]

>>20779680
What does he say the difference is? Because clearly there's some kind of transmutation going on between value and wealth, if he states that surplus value is taken from laborers while also saying capitalism produces the most wealth we've ever seen.

[Anonymous No.20779754]

>>20779708
Those are examples, not definitions. For the reason I stated here >>20779677 I would like a definition with specific parameters, not a bunch of examples.

[Anonymous No.20779758]

Value is subjective. One man's trash is another man's treasure

[Anonymous No.20779763]

>>20779708
Everything in life has subjective value to some degree.

[Anonymous No.20779774]

>>20779684
land is tradeable, and I suppose if you excavate a part of land with a hole in it you could trade it, but I'm not sure if it fits the definition of a hole at that point. point is, the idea of tradable is pretty straightforward. a commodity is traded on a market, and no one is digging holes to trade on a market. you can however, trade your labour on a market to dig holes

[Anonymous No.20779779]

>>20779758
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_Bkp1OIZI4

[Anonymous No.20779780]

>>20779645
Read this post after having posted my latest post. From the begining, Marx was clear. LTV doesn't apply to monopolies, luxury products, work of art.

[Anonymous No.20779837]

>>20779758
That's marginal value. Not the items you use daily. That's fetischism on ebay, for people who have too much time in their life to spend. For society as a whole, it's labor which creates value.

[Anonymous No.20779845]

>>20773975
>machines don't produce value, human labour does
then why do people get replaced by machines

[Anonymous No.20779866]

>>20779743
look up exchange value, use value, and labour value. this distinction is literally the basis of Marx's LTV. Marx says labour value is dead labour congealed in a commodity

[Anonymous No.20779876]

>>20779701
Products cost what someone wants to pay. Except certain outliers like a store selling good X for 20 and another for 10$, overpriced isn't a thing

[Anonymous No.20779921]

>>20779780
ok, so what is a "luxury product" then. there is of course a range of watches. 100. 120 400

and so on

and the free market sets the price for those by demand

[Anonymous No.20779934]

The whole hole in the ground example is retarded. Because it capitalize on an exception, which couldn't be repeated, exept to lead to the ruin of someone who did it.
Digging holes in the ground is not sustainable, so the person who did it who exclude himself out of the socially necessary labor, and even, in an exchange value based type of production, out of the system.

[Anonymous No.20779941]

>>20779866
Ok, so this all goes back to the M - C - M loop Marx describes, then? Capital in motion, and all that?

[Anonymous No.20779943]

>>20779845
because it's cheaper, duh. if machines added value then the price of your products would go up after replacing workers with machines, as each commodity would have more value. it works in reverse, if you don't need a human to do it, costs become cheaper and prices will tend downwards

[Anonymous No.20779968]

>>20773347
Gamer Girl Bathwater

[Anonymous No.20780023]

>>20779876
>Products cost what someone wants to pay
>cost
we are talking about value though, labour value. exchange value (i.e. cost) is subject to all sorts of tendencies like supply and demand. sign value is a whole other discussion we can have, but as another anon pointed out it doesn't actually disprove anything about the idea of labour value, just reworks Marx's model a bit

[Anonymous No.20780027]

>>20779837
>For society as a whole, it's labor which creates value.
Bullshit. If that were true then cashiers would be millionaires

[Anonymous No.20780029]

>>20779934
I'm still waiting for your definition of tradable. And it feels like every time I ask one of you Marxists for anything more than a list of example scenarios you just go radio silent because you know the moment you set objectively measurable parameters your whole theory collapses.

[Anonymous No.20780038]

>>20779921
Luxury products are products which are bought by the owners of the means of production, with the surplus value they got from the working class.
Luxury products wouldn't even exist in a non exchange based mode of production. It is commodity fetishism.

[Anonymous No.20780060]

>>20779943
Thats not creating value thats wasting money on more expensive production costs. Its no different then paying a pajeet to make shoes instead of paying an American at 10x the rate.

[Anonymous No.20780110]

>>20773620
Not exactly capitalism has created just as much and at least with his shit the suffering was apparent where as with capitalism it is subversive and underlying

[Anonymous No.20780173]

>>20780023
my main point is he just makes a big word salad(he marx) that is disproven by reality again and again. labour value is different because like I said , a worker can produce whatever in the same timeframe with the same skillset and be paid same or different

[Anonymous No.20780199]

>>20780038
>Luxury products wouldn't even exist in a non exchange based mode of production. It is commodity fetishism.
Citation needed

Humans have different needs. If everyone is happy and have what they want, of course they would be looking at whatever cool stuff there is. Be it a special wooden cane or a rare mineral as decoration

[Anonymous No.20780235]

>>20780060
the labour value of the shoe would be the average necessary labour time it takes to produce a pair of shoes, the wages you pay your workers has nothing to do with what their labour time produces in an abstract sense. all you are saying is capitalists can exploit the third world, which they do

[Anonymous No.20780278]

>>20780029
Tradable, is if someone want's to buy it. Now you'll say, i would like to buy it, but value is subjective. You'll say, but the hole in the ground is tradable, because someone will buy it, for the sole value of the land. Sure. But if someone dig holes his whole life, and sell them for a price inferior, he won't get far.
The thing is, if something is socially necessary, people will necessarilyh produce it en masse, and then, the market, supply and demand, will have less and less influence on the value of the product, up to a point where the price of the item will be roughly equivalent to the amount of labor this item contain.
Mercantile people like you are under the fetishzm of the merchandize spell, and view goods as having a life of their own, disconnected from the reality of their production, which is human work.

[Anonymous No.20780305]

>>20780173
>my main point is he just makes a big word salad(he marx) that is disproven by reality again and again.
other anons were complaining it was unfalsifiable, but this is more exciting I have to say. how was it disproven?
>labour value is different because like I said , a worker can produce whatever in the same timeframe with the same skillset and be paid same or different
yep. how was Marx's LTV disproven though?

[Anonymous No.20780316]

>>20780199

You're talking to a commie. Everyone will be eating unbranded beans out of cans in how utopia

[Anonymous No.20780327]

>>20780027
Cashier don't produce value. They only participate to the circulation of goods, but they don't create value by themselves.

[Anonymous No.20780372]

>>20773969
By imposing definitions on productive/unproductive labor, you're setting artificial price controls and ignoring supply/demand.

[Anonymous No.20780376]

>>20780029
>>20780278
this whole tangent is pointless. the hole example isn't off because you can't trade a hole (you can't but it's beside the point). a hole isn't a commodity

In Marx's theory, a commodity is something that is bought and sold, or exchanged in a market.[5]

It has value, which represents a quantity of human labor.[6] Because it has value, implies that people try to economise its use. A commodity also has a use value[7] and an exchange value.[8]
It has a use value because, by its intrinsic characteristics, it can satisfy some human need or want, physical or ideal.[9] By nature this is a social use value, i.e. the object is useful not just to the producer but has a use for others generally.[10]
It has an exchange value, meaning that a commodity can be traded for other commodities, and thus give its owner the benefit of others' labor (the labor done to produce the purchased commodity).[11]

[Anonymous No.20780380]

>>20773347
Value is subjective to a person, a African slave mine will produce diamonds and a modern mine using a fraction of that labour will produce the same subjective value of diamonds to the consumer regardless of how many hours it took to produce the product.

[Anonymous No.20780392]

>>20773347
How does the Labor Theory of Value explain how I can be lazy and make money from staking SUTER?

[Anonymous No.20780434]

>>20780199
You whole argument are based on an exchange value based system. You are thinking inside the exchange value mode of production box. Therefore you cannot see realities which transcend this box, and where here way before the birth of exchange value, and will probably be here after it.

[Anonymous No.20780439]

It’s not, and I’m glad to see all these /pol/ brainlets get wrecked. Back to your containment board, retards.

[Anonymous No.20780462]

>>20780235
>the labour value of the shoe would be the average necessary labour time it takes to produce a pair of shoes
Again these are just running costs not value.

[Anonymous No.20780467]

>>20780376
you can trade land a hole is on, that is a commodity. you can trade labour too. you can't trade a hole because a hole is the absence of something. it's like selling a gap or a crevice. it's not a thing it is the lack of a thing lmao

[Anonymous No.20780471]

>>20780278
>The thing is, if something is socially necessary, people will necessarilyh produce it en masse, and then, the market, supply and demand, will have less and less influence on the value of the product, up to a point where the price of the item will be roughly equivalent to the amount of labor this item contain.

That's assuming that there will always be constant demand for the "socially necessary" product. What happens when demand drops? Look at what happened with oil prices. Will there be a price floor for "labor value" when less people want the product?

[Anonymous No.20780476]

>>20773347
You can not coordinate time and money from a centralized authority.

The centralized authority has no idea how much value your time is, only the person who purchases it.

[Anonymous No.20780487]

>>20773347
Because we don't live in the 18th century anymore and the whole theory is outdated once you look it with historical context. In the 18th century the skill of the worker for most massive production jobs was really important since most of the jobs were done by manual labour therefore the value of the product was based more or less on the skill of the worker rather than the capital used in the production process .Most of the companies back then who were based on production rather than trade still held the old guild relationship which means the workers or the employees most likely used to be unskilled people who worked for the master of the trade in order to gain more knowledge.

Fast forward to the industrial revolution we have a major change in the production process since most of the work of the production is done by the machines we have a shift in relevance suddenly the skill of the worker for most of the jobs is irrelevant the only thing that matters is to satisfy the massive market .The capitalist in this period try to accumulate capital in order to upkeep and run the machines because without the machines there is no production process since the only way to achieve massive production is with capital the only class who can actually really upkeep the machines are the Investors with their investment there is a expansion of capital and resources who can fuel the whole process and attract other factors of production .The period of industrial capitalism not only that made the workers as a factor of production irrelevant they also replaced the workers as the main labor force in the process of creative distraction.

[Anonymous No.20780491]

>>20780439
The answers from communists here aren't satisfying at all. And you don't need to be from /pol/ to hate commies. I hate /pol/ too.

[Anonymous No.20780534]

>>20780278
>Tradable, is if someone wants to buy it.
Then a hole in the ground is tradable the moment someone wants to buy it. Not even just for the vlaue of the land, but maybe because they want a hole. Stranger things have happened.
And according to >>20779292 things that aren't tradable aren't socially necessary.
Therefore anything that anyone wants to buy is socially necessary.
So the way you determine what is "productive labor" or "socially necessary labor" or whatever is just "if someone wants to buy it".

But if that's correct then what determines a good's value isn't labor at all. It's just how much someone is willing to pay for it. And if that's the case, a free market with supply and demand based pricing is the best method. Marx presents a very strong anti-socialist argument.

[Anonymous No.20780586]

>>20780471
>Will there be a price floor for "labor value"
price
does
not
equal
value

[Anonymous No.20780615]

>>20780586
Price is an expression of value.

[Anonymous No.20780625]

>>20780467
A hole takes labor and materials to produce and has its uses. You can store stuff in holes.

[Anonymous No.20780627]

>>20780491

Are you even talking about the same thread? These based posters

>>20773347
>>20773975

Just btfo these smoothbrains and their Heritage Foundation talking points. Be like this guy: recognize Marx was right and move on. >>20774331
Don’t even act like capitalism isn’t an inherently incredibly exploitative and corrupt system.

[Anonymous No.20780654]

>>20780586
Yea commies have a value system that no one uses and when even tried just leeches off capitalist valuations

[Anonymous No.20780659]

>>20780627
I disagree.

[Anonymous No.20780669]

>>20780586
How do you quantify value then? If you can't measure it objectively, then you have no argument.

[Anonymous No.20780714]

>>20780471
Marx was not opposed to supply and demand, in case you didn't know. He use it a lot. The thing, is supply and demand regulated value, but doesn't create it. Merchants thing that the value is create in the market (the circulation sphere). This is wrong. Value is created on the production sphere. The market only regulate the production, but doesn't create the value of the production.

[Anonymous No.20780716]

>>20780659

You’re wrong, but you’re entitled to your delusion.

[Anonymous No.20780734]

>>20780716
How much LINK do you own?

[Anonymous No.20780752]

>>20780734
Same question to you, >>20780714

[Anonymous No.20780767]

>>20780615
Marx would basically agree. prices will tend towards expressing labour value over time, but most of the time they don't
>>20780625
yes, it's not a commodity though. a shelf is. a box is. a bowl is. not "the lack of dirt in the ground" though. some other anon gave the example of excavating the ground which contains the hole and trading that, and that might work, although what the definition of a "hole" is at that point gets pretty murky

[Anonymous No.20780805]

>>20780714
So outside of the factory, no value can be added to the product? That makes no sense. You're basically excluding every other cost like transportation, storage, etc.

[Anonymous No.20780810]

>>20779055
no u

[Anonymous No.20780840]

>>20780669
I am just going to stop responding to these questions lol if you don't know how Marx quantifies value why are you even ITT? read the thread if you are curious but for the love of god don't make me explain economics 101 again

[Anonymous No.20780843]

>>20780734

>”owning” internet play money

ngmi

[Anonymous No.20780861]

>>20780586
Yes it does

[Anonymous No.20780864]

>>20780714
But bringing products to your locality is adding value, now you don't have to drive to Mexico to get some delicious Mexican mangoes

[Anonymous No.20780867]

>>20780534
Like it was said, the hole in the ground doesn't have use value. On a rhetoric field, it is a faulty generalization. I could do the exact same thing, saying that multiple items have the exact same price as the amount of labor they contain, which is close to the truth by the way (See Paul Cockshott).

[Anonymous No.20780876]

>>20780767

Can you recommend me some books? I mean you’re going to say Capital, but anything else? So much of Marxian economics is just strawmanned to death so it’s hard to find a true academic study of it

[Anonymous No.20780903]

>>20773628
explains the modern day global economy quite well imo

[Anonymous No.20780904]

>>20780805
>You're basically excluding every other cost like transportation, storage, etc.
do you think, just maybe, transportation and storage requires labour? how do trucks get from one place to another anon?

[Anonymous No.20780930]

>>20780805
Exactly. Storage doesn't create value. It only avoid value to deprecate.

[Anonymous No.20780932]

>>20780714
>Value is created on the production sphere
So a naturally grown fruit has no value because no one put in labor to grow it?

[Anonymous No.20780941]

>>20780867
>Like it was said, the hole in the ground doesn't have use value
Oh boy another vague term that I'm sure when pressed on you will define in such a way that it can be applied to literally anything. Please define (don't provide examples of, DEFINE) use value.

[Anonymous No.20780964]

>>20780840
You never explained it the first place, just running around in circles with the same definition. The fact Marxists are unwilling elaborate beyond regurgitated definitions shows how shallow Marxism is.

[Anonymous No.20780974]

>>20780904
so one trucker carrying millions of dollars worth of goods owns all of those goods?

[Anonymous No.20780986]

>>20780805
(...) Transportation is complex, because it can be considred as entering in the production process.

[Anonymous No.20781008]

>>20780843
So you're not a /biz/ regular I take it.

[Anonymous No.20781024]

>>20780876
just read Wage Labour and Capital, it's short. Most Marxists are just critiquing Marx anyways, but they actually read him. I mentioned Baudrillard at one point who has some good critiques but doesn't exactly write "economics". a good place to go for a non-Marxist, economic critique is the Austrian school, people like Mises and Bawark are good

[Anonymous No.20781025]

>>20780904
also we have computer piloted trucks and planes now lol

[Anonymous No.20781032]

>>20780932
In critique of the Gotha program, Marx said that nature can create, and has, value.

[Anonymous No.20781062]

>>20781008

I’ve been here since the beginning you zoomer faggot; before a bunch of degenerate NEET gamblers like you came in with your shitcoins and ruined this board.

[Anonymous No.20781068]

>>20780974
no, all he owns is his labour power. might own the truck if he's lucky.

[Anonymous No.20781114]

>>20781024

Lmao Mises is like your uncle trying to explain marginal utility but I get your point. Thanks; I’ll check them out.

[Anonymous No.20781127]

>>20781062
"Shitcoin" that we bought for 20 cents or less which is now over $7. All that matters is the multiplier applied to your money. If you've been here from the beginning and disregarded crypto all these years, you've missed a lot of great opportunities to make it.

[Anonymous No.20781136]

>>20781068
Ya but trucking is an easy do nothing job. If this truckers labor is in control of millions of dollars worth of goods how are we calculating the value of his labor compared to the guy that is working harder loading the truck?

[Anonymous No.20781139]

>>20780327
If they're laboring then they must be creating value. That's literally how the labour theory of value works

[Anonymous No.20781141]

>>20781025
yes, further removing labour power from the commodity at the expense of those labourers jobs, making them cheaper, exactly how Marx suggested capitalism would operate

[Anonymous No.20781185]

>>20781114
I agree on Mises but the calculation problem remains one of the central critiques of socialist economics

[Anonymous No.20781253]

>>20780986
But the transportation service may not be part of the same business as the factory. How much value are they allowed to add to the product?

[Anonymous No.20781255]

>>20781136
>If this truckers labor is in control of millions of dollars worth of goods how are we calculating the value of his labor compared to the guy that is working harder loading the truck?
under capitalism? it's the market that decides. anon if you are saying we should restructure society to give ownership to the people who work the hardest you are way way more socialist than I am lmao

[Anonymous No.20781264]

>>20781141
Thats not a capitalism issue thats just the issue of whether or not we ban automation. Capitalism still works in a non automated world. If anything shit like UBI is entirely dependent on automation paired with a socialist government.

[Anonymous No.20781314]

>>20781139
Are they still laboring during downtime?

[Anonymous No.20781324]

>>20780305
>the
like i said, it's proven wrong by the reality that someone can work a long time for something people don't want, or the other way around. also that you can work in a factory producing cheap something, or expensive something, and get paid the same

[Anonymous No.20781327]

>>20781139
>If they're laboring then they must be creating value. That's literally how the labour theory of value works
nope, Marx was pretty detailed about abstract vs. concrete labour and the idea of social necessity. although a cashier does aid in the process of the valorization of the commodity so I would say she does create value (what else would the capitalist be exploiting?)

[Anonymous No.20781374]

>>20781264
>Thats not a capitalism issue thats just the issue of whether or not we ban automation. Capitalism still works in a non automated world.
huh, weird, guess Marx just made a really really REALLY good uneducated guess then
>If anything shit like UBI is entirely dependent on automation paired with a socialist government.
Marx argued directly against forms of UBI in his time

[Anonymous No.20781386]

The soviet union is filled with hilarious stories of central planning

[Anonymous No.20781406]

Satoshi was a LTV believer.
"The price of any commodity tends to gravitate toward the production cost. If the price is below cost, then production slows down. If the price is above cost, profit can be made by generating and selling more. At the same time, the increased production would increase the difficulty, pushing the cost of generating towards the price."
If one wants to understand the true nature of Bitcoin, and the nature of other POW coins, he has to understand the LTV. POW doesn't appear in a vaccuum. It requires human work. Indeed, electricity require human work. Quite a lot. From raw materials, to the power station.

[Anonymous No.20781422]

>>20780964
literally this. every answer is "you said X, marx doesn't use X" or "no marx mean social value" then don't define social value

[Anonymous No.20781445]

dIg hoAls cheCKmAte aThIestS

[Anonymous No.20781457]

>>20781324
>it's proven wrong by the reality that someone can work a long time for something people don't want, or the other way around.
Marx explains this though, not all labour is the same. some labour is more useful than other labour
>also that you can work in a factory producing cheap something, or expensive something, and get paid the same
I don't even know how this is supposed to be an argument against LTV, let alone Marxism. Marx would agree that wage labour is disconnected from the value generated by the workers labour

[Anonymous No.20781491]

>>20781406
very true, literally chose "proof of work" as a consensus mechanism

[Anonymous No.20781508]

>>20781457
>Marx would agree that wage labour is disconnected from the value generated by the workers labour

the theory is literally more work = more value... so no

[Anonymous No.20781546]

>>20781508
>the theory is literally more work = more value
??????

[Anonymous No.20781564]

>>20781422
Yet the example of the mercantilists to invalidate LTV is a hole in the ground. Something that almost never ever happen in this reality.

[Anonymous No.20781592]

>>20781508
>all value comes from labour
is not the same thing as
>all labour produces the same amount of value

[Anonymous No.20781611]

>>20781327
>although a cashier does aid in the process of the valorization of the commodity so I would say she does create value

If Marx was detailed enough, then why do you need to add your opinion?

[Anonymous No.20781612]

>>20781386

>criticize “central planning”
>is okay with 600 billionaires controlling the US economy

Big think

[Anonymous No.20781652]

>>20781611
Marx lived in the 1800's anon, sorry he didn't write about Walmart employees lmao

[Anonymous No.20781678]

>>20781327
I'm sorry, is the commodification of labour not central to Marxist thinking? There's nothing abstract about the labour of a cashier. The cashier has to sit there and do the work and has to be paid for doing it, which must be accounted for in pricing. Considering that cashiers are essential workers as we found out, labour theory of value should expect them to be compensated appropriately.

[Anonymous No.20781689]

>>20781612
Better than a soviet shit hole that my grandpa escaped from

[Anonymous No.20781690]

>>20781652
because there weren't traders/cashiers selling shit in 1800? lol

[Anonymous No.20781727]

>>20781508
The sun is the source of a plants life. That doesn't mean more and more sun = more growth. Labor creates value, but production is indeed regulated by the needs of everybody. Needs which can be translated in the term supply and demand, in the mouth of the mercantilists.

[Anonymous No.20781751]

>>20781406
>Indeed, electricity require human work. Quite a lot. From raw materials, to the power station.

Nothing compared to the work that nature's doing. The water that's pushing through turbines are from nature's power, not human power. Taking credit for something you didn't do is stealing. Bitcoin, ultimately, is just converting natural resources to digital data. It's not proof of work. It's proof that you can steal from nature.

[Anonymous No.20781793]

>>20781652
Lmao, are you sure cashiers never existed in his lifetime?

[Anonymous No.20781804]

>>20773347
Its not wrong, but its too rigid and ignores the possibility of scale when it comes to individual labour.
Many traditional jobs were not scalable, a craftsman can only gain as much value from his labour as he puts in. A chef can only serve as many people as he can make dishes in a set amount of time, he can’t make one dish and serve infinite people.
Meanwhile an author for example can write one book and potentially serve an infinite number of people, thus creating infinite possible value even long after he dies thanks to the printing press and the written word so that he does not need to write a whole new story for each person.

This scalability creates inequality and makes it so that certain people’s value is magnified to extreme levels beyond that of others.
Marx ignores this and thus creates a system of farcical situations like trains full of toothbrushes driving off to Siberia and back again and again in order to show more kilometres driven and more toothbrushes produced (for whom?)

[Anonymous No.20781875]

>>20781751
Marx, in the Critique of the Gotha program, exactly said that nature is a source of value. And that it should be use responsibly.
Bitcoin is a paradox. Between the old exchange value system, and lower communism, which lead to upper communism. Bitcoin use p2p, which is communal technology, decentralization, and tryed to make it something exchangeable.
In the next century, people will see Bitcoin both as something revolutionary, yet paradoxical, contradictory.

[Anonymous No.20781878]

>>20781689

>I’d rather lick Jeff Bezo’s boots than a commisar’s

Ultra think

[Anonymous No.20781899]

>>20781678
>labour theory of value should expect them to be compensated appropriately
the labour theory of value explains economic phenomena it doesn't tell you what should happen. the LTV isn't socialism lmao I don't know why I keep having to type that
>>20781727
a walmart cashier isn't a trader, they own none of the good they sell. usually, in the 1800's a shop would be run by a shopkeeper who owns it. He might employ a stock boy or something. But in shopkeeper case, Marx give the idea of the petit-bougoise, which isn't the same at all as todays cashiers. anyways, none of this relates to the LTV

[Anonymous No.20781916]

can anyone answer with a simple but efficient answer why communism has never worked even though on paper it sounds good?

[Anonymous No.20781934]

ask a marxist how an economy based on the labor theory of value accounts for risk and risk arbitrage and watch them squirm

[Anonymous No.20781940]

>>20781916
Because it doesn't even sound good on paper if you think about it.

[Anonymous No.20781950]

>>20781899
meant for
>>20781793

>>20781751
>It's not proof of work. It's proof that you can steal from nature
Marx defines labour as the struggle of man against nature. Actually, he borrows the definition from Locke and Smith, but you know, basically still shows how little you know about what you are talking about

[Anonymous No.20781974]

>>20781878
>I'd rather make something out of myself in capitalst west than starved to death under the soviet union

Tough choice, tough choice.

[Anonymous No.20781975]

>>20781804
LTV, newly output by producer of tradable, reproducible goods. Not applicable to work of art.

[Anonymous No.20781987]

>>20781934
>ask a marxist how an economy based on the labor theory of value accounts for risk and risk arbitrage and watch them squirm
capitalism is an economy based on the LTV

[Anonymous No.20782023]

>>20781878
Of course Bezos is better. For most people, Jeff Bezos has made the world a better place. Amazon kicks ass.

[Anonymous No.20782033]

>>20781899
>the labour theory of value explains economic phenomena it doesn't tell you what should happen
If the theory fails to explain the phenomenon then it's wrong retard. If cashiers aren't compensated appropriately for the value of their labour that means that the value comes from elsewhere and that the LVT is bunk

[Anonymous No.20782069]

>>20781975
Art can be tradable and reproducible.

[Anonymous No.20782079]

>>20781987
lol you wish faggot

[Anonymous No.20782144]

>>20781934
Your risk arbitrage is something inside of the political economy system. Inside of the exchange value based mode of production.
It's like saying, the the 13th century: "how would priest make confession in 7 centuries, if people don't believe in God anymore?". Your problem is a problem which exist in a particular mode of production, and would most likely be taken care with a different approach in the next one.

[Anonymous No.20782189]

>>20782033
>If cashiers aren't compensated appropriately for the value of their labour that means that the value comes from elsewhere
or... maybe... their surplus value is going somewhere else... like... to the owner of the means of production???

[Anonymous No.20782226]

>>20782069
I meant products which 'cannot be reproduced by labor, such as antiques and works of art by certain masters, etc.'" Such is a chef.

[Anonymous No.20782235]

>>20782079
>Marx writes 3 volumes about the LTV called Capital
>realizes on his deathbed he actually meant to say Social the whole time
>dies

[Anonymous No.20782239]

>>20782144
so risk and uncertainty of information isnt something that exists outside of a capitalist system?
holy hell neck yourself

[Anonymous No.20782260]

>>20781950
>Marx defines labour as the struggle of man against nature.

Even by that definition, that doesn't apply to Bitcoin and power plant because the people running those things don't need to actively work to produce value. You're not "struggling" when you're sitting in an air conditioned room and staring at a bunch of screens. You're not struggling against nature when you're handling products that don't come from nature.

Really shows that you're just regurgitating definitions without even thinking how they're applicable IRL.

[Anonymous No.20782310]

>>20782239
Yes it exists, but it would be managed differently.

[Anonymous No.20782346]

>>20782260
>Even by that definition, that doesn't apply to Bitcoin and power plant because the people running those things don't need to actively work to produce value.
what do you mean? you think people who work in powerplants don't work?
>You're not "struggling" when you're sitting in an air conditioned room and staring at a bunch of screens. You're not struggling against nature when you're handling products that don't come from nature.
oh, you just think they need to... work harder? I don't get what your point is. you work so you can eat food and sleep under a roof because if you don't you will die. that is the struggle against nature. us building power plants is just another step in a long long history of our struggle against nature. if you don't think this is true you aren't even pro capitalist you are like amish or somehting lmoa

[Anonymous No.20782396]

>>20781875
Next century, we'll all be dead, so it doesn't matter. BTC would only be notable as an experiment. I don't see it becoming universal given the security risks and lack of actual decentralization.

[Anonymous No.20782421]

>>20781987
Imagine being this retarded holy fuck. Capitalism is almost the opposite of the labor theory of value.

[Anonymous No.20782451]

>>20782260
>You're not "struggling" when you're sitting in an air conditioned room and staring at a bunch of screens. You're not struggling against nature when you're handling products that don't come from nature.
So you wouldn't mind working as a miner who exctract the coal used to make electricity? Or the offshore rig, or the power station worker? Or the asian working 10 hours a day in a Bitcoin maning facility? Or the asian who built the graphic card themselves?
The one creating value is not the one behind the screen, checking if everything goes all right.

[Anonymous No.20782469]

>>20782421
what are you talking about, commodities produced under any stage of production find their value from labour. read Marx lmao

[Anonymous No.20782557]

>>20782421
>Value is created in the circulation sphere, not in the factory.

[Anonymous No.20782600]

>>20782023

>Amazon kicks ass

I don’t have a cringey enough basedjack for this

>>20781974

>I’d rather make a business owner wealthy off of my labor and get scraps in return

FTFY

[Anonymous No.20782648]

>>20782600
It does though.

[Anonymous No.20782670]

>I don’t have a cringey enough basedjack for this

[Anonymous No.20782671]

>>20782600

>It does though

I don’t have a cringey enough basedjack for this