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

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 78 KB, 1050x977, waifu.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10667312 No.10667312[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

The labor theory of value is correct.
Few understand this.

>> No.10667316

>>10667312
It really isn't though

>> No.10667319
File: 391 KB, 957x1241, freethinker.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10667319

The labor theory of value is wrong, but few understand why

>> No.10667327

>>10667316
>>10667319
present any criticism, and i will decisively refute it

>> No.10667339

>>10667327
>mmmmm cuz mmuh price theory
>we are not interested in the social sciences attempt to understand and explain why things are
>we are interested in digits that simply are

>> No.10667402

>>10667327
>>10667339
There simply is no such thing as value independent of price.
Sorry Marxists

>> No.10667413

>>10667312
Nope. Read Kolakowski.

>> No.10667439

>>10667402
I had to trade labor to purchase Food Item X, containing Y Calories. In the abstract, I would not have made this exchange if I could have produced Y Calories by myself, with fewer of my own labor hours than I sold [for a wage] to purchase Food Item X.

Labor provides access to commodities with use-value.

>>10667413
state your case, brainlet.

>> No.10667444
File: 94 KB, 544x479, 1400719522157.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10667444

>>10667312
>The labor theory of value is correct.

>> No.10667446

>>10667439
>calories
ah yes, I too consume packets of energy

>> No.10667453

>>10667446
>i am too unintelligent to understand a simplified economic model
sorry

>>10667444
oh look, another non-argument

>> No.10667456

Could this thread move to /pol/? It would improve the quality of that board.

>> No.10667462

>>10667439
>I had to trade labor to purchase

You didn't HAVE TO, you HAPPENED TO. You could have just as easily robbed them or found a lottery ticket or have a friend give them to you

>> No.10667465

>>10667312
it is technically correct yes, but exchange rules prices and thus rules wages

>> No.10667466

>>10667446
>>10667439
I bought 4 bags of Japanese peanuts, 2 bags of extra large Cheetos puff corn and a miller high life for 3000 calories for 9 dollars or I bought a fancy vegan soy plate in Soho while hanging out with my fellow revolucionares for 25 dollars with 300 calories

>> No.10667467

>>10667453
>a simplified economic model
Who gives a fuck about those outside of high school?

>> No.10667470

>>10667453
Exchange cannot even take place if objects have objective value.

>> No.10667472

>>10667466
enjoy yourself, man

>> No.10667506

>>10667470
That's not true, though.

>> No.10667511

>>10667465
Ah, someone reasonable. Productivity functions are as nebulous as utility functions. Likewise, transaction do not take place on a universal exchange. No matter how obfuscated, though, the value of an object comes from the labor imbued within it.

>>10667462
>>10667467
I can tell you two are not very smart. Please refrain from posting, as you are out of your depth.

>>10667470
Have you ever heard of a utility function?

>> No.10667517

>>10667506
It is, otherwise what motivation would anyone have to part with anything?

>> No.10667523

>>10667511
>utility function isn't value

>> No.10667525

>>10667517
Because other objects have objective value as well.

>> No.10667527
File: 433 KB, 1199x709, 1508093711746.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10667527

>>10667511
>Disagree with me? Haha, your argument doesn't count

Cool story bro

>> No.10667531

>>10667527
He's clearly a plebbitor, don't give him his delicious yoose.

>> No.10667534

>>10667525
Doesn't matter, if they're equally valuable what would be the point in exchanging them?

>> No.10667541

>>10667534
You need calories just as much as you need water. If you only have dry food with calories, you would trade some for water

>> No.10667542

>>10667523
two objects with the same exchange value can be worth more or less to a person with respect to their use-value

>> No.10667544

>>10667541
Oh so what you're saying is that sometimes water can be more valuable than food to me but not to other people

>> No.10667555

>>10667544
Water and food are always useful. You won't give up one for the other, you'll try to have both.

>> No.10667565

>>10667555
Irrelevant
Point is that it is self evident that any exchange is predicated on the compatablity of different subjective valuations from two agents

>> No.10667571

>>10667565
I agree objects have objective value, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be exchanged if they had. I could have food worth 3x calories, but unable to transport them to my home. You, with a larger car, offer me 2.5x calories for my 3x, as my car can bring the 2.5x calories home.

>> No.10667573

>>10667571
>I agree objects have objective value
DON'T have, jesus

>> No.10667582

>>10667571
The practical contingencies of your utilization factor into any valuation

Stop talking about calories like a retard, they're irrelevant

>> No.10667592

No it's not accurate at all. How and why something is valued is completely culturally bounded.

Oil would be practically worthless if someone never invented the internal combustion engine.

>> No.10667593

>>10667582
It's precisely for that reason it's retarded to talk about objective value, but you need to understand which way you approach the argument from. If the premise is that objects have objective value, your argument is still moot, since an object can have an objective value as well as additional value stemming from the mentioned practical contingencies.

>> No.10667600

>>10667571
stop talking about fucking calories bro, u sacrifice calories for taste, its literally up to the consumer what they want to eat and if youre seriously proposing taking that choice away by their weight in fucking calories u truly belong in the ward

>> No.10667603

>>10667456
This. /pol/, /biz/, maybe even /his/, it does not belong here in any case.

>> No.10667606

>>10667593
>since an object can have an objective value as well as additional value stemming from the mentioned practical contingencies.

Wrong, its all the one value i.e. the fucking price you pay for it

>> No.10667610

>>10667600
Read >>10667593, dumbass. The premise for this line of discussion is that objects have objective value, not how it is determined.
>>10667606
As I just told this other guy, the premise for the discussion is IF objects have objective value.

>> No.10667618

>>10667600
>its literally up to the consumer what they want to eat
missing the point, the question is whether it's "literally" up to the consumer whether they want to eat at all

>> No.10667638

>>10667312
>>10667511
>>10667573
As someone who has had to sit through six economics classes, honestly this thread makes me sick! Good heavens, what is wrong with you people? Different objects have different prices based on the utility or pleasure they provide. For example, a spaceship is expensive because it allows whoever pays for it to go into space, which is a pretty rare thing. Under your pretexes, a spaceship is only worth as much as the greedy capitalists(?) NASA/Musk put into machinery and highly paid engineers and specialists to put it together (???laborers???) is worth as much as a hole the size of a Virginian county which required an equal amount of labor(???)

>> No.10667648

>>10667638
engineer here, why the fuck are people still talking about certain knowledge? of course it's certain! i have a formula, i enter some numbers, and 99% of times i get a satisfactory answer. what the fuck is wrong with christians?

>> No.10667664

>>10667648
technology is a bad thing anon, it only favors the burgeouise. if we just rely on copying the Cappies advanced technology we can definitely compete

>> No.10667676

>>10667638
just think: why would you pay a premium for a product that you can fabricate yourself for less.

nobody would pay Musk to go to space if they could build and pilot a rocket themselves for less. what makes a visit to space 'rare' is precisely that it is so costly (in terms of labor).

>> No.10667685

>>10667638
>Different objects have different prices based on the utility or pleasure they provide.
this is just braindead. you cannot account for price fluctuations with this model. if an orange gives me $1 worth of utility, and the prevailing wage is $10/hr, an orange costs ~6mins of my time. If I can walk down the street and pick an orange in less than 6mins, I'm not going to spend $1 on an orange.

>> No.10667698

>>10667676
yeah but without spending money on it to further advance technology we will never develop cheaper and easier methods for production. the dream that one day you could buy a ticket to mars isn't that farfetched or far off, maybe 400-500 years

>> No.10667703

>>10667685
no shit, but what if you live in a place where there are no oranges? that's why they have their value. And they actually are much cheaper in places oranges grow

>> No.10667709
File: 24 KB, 960x893, really_makes_your_neurons_oscillate.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10667709

>>10667402

>When you're so lost inside the downward spiral of capital that you can't conceive life outside of commodity fetishism

Damn, I can't even say anything about this

>> No.10667718

>>10667402
Yeah dude pre market societies have absolutely no understanding of value

>> No.10667730

>>10667703
you're missing the point. 'value' is a function of the labor necessary to produce something.

>>10667698
what the fuck are you even talking about? this post is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

>> No.10667731

>>10667709
>>10667718
And those societies wouldn't disagree with the price notion of value. As per the notion that shit is worth whatever you're willing to give for it

>> No.10667736

>>10667718
there is no such thing as a pre-market society

>> No.10667755

This isn't literature. Few understand this.

>> No.10667800

>>10667312
>The labor theory of value is correct.
It's a good concept, but the marxist notion that you can calculate the amount of socially necessary work hours for any complex job is ridiculous, and -without that- the margin of application of the surplus value calculation falls apart in almost every case.

>> No.10667918

>>10667736
All anthropological research refutes this

>> No.10667937

>>10667542
>use-value
>exchange value

>> No.10668042

>>10667918
>two people can live together in community without exchanging goods
all it takes is one guy gathering berries and the other guy fetching water.

>> No.10668053

>>10667937
what?

>> No.10668109

>>10668053
Why make a distinction?

>> No.10668146

>>10668109
because a use-value is predicated on your own utility function, whereas exchange value is a function of labor.

>> No.10668259

baka we live in a throw away society and this flippin nibber is talmbout "the labor theory of value is correct"

>> No.10668275

>>10667709
>implying you can

Just because you consider yourself an oh-so-enlightened Marxist, don't pretend that you don't own an Iphone or a Samsung smartphone, and are shitposting on it at this minute, you hypocrite.

>> No.10668304

>>10668275
>brainlet

>> No.10668319

>>10668146
That doesn't explain anything.

>> No.10668336

>>10668319
Sorry, brainlets need not reply.
Spectate this thread in the future.

>>10668275
OP here, not that guy--I own a flip phone, and your reply is totally irrelevant to the content of this thread.

>> No.10668359

>>10668336
>accuses other people of suffering from commodity fetishism but conveniently doesn't think he does so himself
>"totally irrelevant to the content of this thread"

Sure thing, hypocrite.

>> No.10668367
File: 61 KB, 324x347, 1436652182413.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10668367

>>10668336
>A apples and B apples are different. A apples come from trees and B apples come from seeds.
>But aren't those the same apples?
>N-no it's different

>> No.10668422

>>10668367
>is incapable of reading
>posts a gay bill nye react
please, go somewhere else, anywhere else

>> No.10668430
File: 45 KB, 749x743, 27540984_1743694015692827_2562507931991937491_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10668430

>>10668359
>>10668275

I'm not OP but, well what kind of fallacy is this? We are all drowned in commodity fetishism, that doesn't mean we can't criticize it. Are you gullible about every fucking thing which goes on with your life? Don't answer that, we probably know the answer.

>Implying it's feasible to live without commodity fetishism when born into a community that idolizes commodity fetishism

>>10668042

Capital is so strong that it has twisted our worldview into classifying all human relationship as financial. If you must define that every exchange is an investment, then absolutely everything is goods, and there's no way we can even talk to each other, you removed every other value ad hoc. We can keep living in this world and the people at the top can never worry about it because most of us are actually defending the accumulation of our capital right up their ass.

>> No.10668439

>>10668430
>t it has twisted our worldview into classifying all human relationship as financia
The level of projection it requires for a fucking Marxist to say this WEW

>> No.10668456

>>10668430
>well what kind of fallacy is this? We are all drowned in commodity fetishism, that doesn't mean we can't criticize it.

I never said you couldn't criticize the concept, but using it as an argument against other people is literally arguing in bad faith.

>> No.10668465

>>10668430
>If you must define that every exchange is an investment, then absolutely everything is goods, and there's no way we can even talk to each other, you removed every other value ad hoc.

What? You're just reducing the argument to nothing because you don't have a valid answer to the problem of exchanging goods being a constant in human societies.

>> No.10668470

>>10668456
>my phone gives me faith

>> No.10668481

>>10668470
iphones are proof of God tbqh

>> No.10668503
File: 7 KB, 222x280, 1437168604063.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10668503

>>10668422
No, I'll just annoy you until you explain why you have to make unnecessary distinctions which regards to commodity value.

>> No.10668511

>>10668470
>doesn't even understand basic philosophical concepts

Makes sense that you're a Marxist now.

>> No.10668518

>>10668511
I'm not a marxist you fool. Go fling shit somewhere else.

>> No.10668522

>>10668438

financial does not equal material in the Marxist sense, friend.

>> No.10668532

OP here, seems like members of this board are too pea-brained to actually discuss economics. Shoehorning your political opinions into the discussion can't mask your lack of brain power.

>> No.10668544

>>10667312
Nope.

>two objects are built with the same level of labour
>one is a different colour
>people buy the one more that is a different colour
>the price thus for the different coloured one is more expensive, more valuable
>LTV can’t explain this

>> No.10668548

>>10668518
Then stop butting into a current discussion you fucking brainlet.

>> No.10668576

>>10668544
Let's say it is Color Y that is more desirable than Color B

People will pay a premium for Color Y, up to the point where the cost of purchasing Color B and repainting it is equal to the benefit of having the object in Color Y.

The fact that they prefer Color Y relates to their personal utility function. Looking from another angle, the 'labor' that went into producing the object in Color B was misspent--i.e. it was relatively less productive.

Your argument, isn't.

>> No.10668600

>>10668430
You never talk anything but nonsense Algernon!

>> No.10668603

>>10668548
Stick to lurking if you can't stomach being called out on the bullshit you post, anon.

>> No.10668611

>>10668576
So the value of the object is determined by consumers.

>> No.10668613

>>10668576
Nope, both objects have the same value of labour put into it, people just want the different coloured one more. It’s not even a question of utility, people just want the one that’s different coloured more. The other coloured one, has less value, because it isn’t valued as much.

>> No.10668704

>>10668611
In the sense that everyone has a different productivity function, determining the point at which they would be better off producing an object for themselves. You're failing at producing a 'Gotcha'

>>10668613
>It’s not even a question of utility, people just want the one that’s different coloured more.
I'm

>> No.10668719

>>10668704
Ok, but you still feel the need to posit that there is a seperate value from this which is a function of labor. Why is this necessary?

>> No.10668722

>>10667402
>There simply is no such thing as value independent of price.
Your life.

/thread nigga
>gtfo

>> No.10668738

>>10667511
>the value of an object comes from the labor imbued within it

no, the value of an object comes from the price people are willing to pay for it. (see: most luxury goods)

>> No.10668756

>>10668719
*groans*

>>10668738
so why don't you go mine gold and sell it?

>> No.10668764

not even Zizek believes in LTV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMjGxg4Dq34

>> No.10668771

>>10668756
Why the fuck can't you just explain?

>> No.10668777

>>10667312
The ridiculous irony of Marxism becoming an ideology with this degree of blind adherence is hilarious.

>> No.10668781

>The labor theory of value is correct.
Few understand this.

What did xir mean by this?

>> No.10668789

>>10667312
Serious response I'd like to discuss:

Consider a truly useless object, unconditionally useless. As the object is useless, it is valueless (1). But, at least *some* labor was involved in the creation of this object, as no objects exist without labor (2). Therefor it has value per the LTV (3), a contradiction. So one of these assertions must be false.

Assuming you believe the LTV, which of (1) or (2) do you reject? Or do you have a problem with the argument itself?

>> No.10668802

>>10668789
marx says values are contained in use values, so something that isn't useful for anyone will not have an exchange value.

>> No.10668821

>>10668764
zizek agrees with marx in this clip, its the vulgar marxists he's arguing against.

>> No.10668842

>>10668771
it takes L A B O R to mine gold, and someone does it more efficiently than you, otherwise you would just go do it yourself. You would rather sell your own labor at a wage and purchase gold, because that it your U T I L I T Y MA X I M I Z I N G option

>>10668777
>labor theory of value is marxism
*eyeroll*

>>10668789
work isn't inherently valuable. there is such a thing as 'spinning your gears'. there is even work that destroys value. this is not a refutation of the labor theory of value.

>> No.10668888

>>10668821
he literally says LTV needs to be rethought and not even bright guys like David Harvey have the balls to admit it

>> No.10668891

>>10668842
But how does that labor produce a value separate from consumer judgement?

>> No.10668898

>>10668888

im sorry it was me that had to tell you this, but david harvey isn't actually a bright guy.

>> No.10668907

>>10668898
harvey being a retard doesn't suddenly make LTV valid

>> No.10668927

If societies that produce things and distribute them according to calculations of SNLT instead of a market can exist, then the labour theory of value is correct.
Such societies have, in fact, existed.
Therefore the LTV is correct.
QED

>> No.10668929

>>10667312
The labor theory of value sort of works, sometimes, but isn't universally correct. It also implies a sort of universalist approach to different collectives and their "natural tendencies" towards production or what have you, when this is very much so not the case.

>> No.10668938

>>10668891
oh my god you are hopeless

ask yourself a question: assuming there is a competitive market in the provision of some good, why does the price of the good drop when the process of production becomes more efficient?

obviously, it has absolutely nothing to do with ""consumer judgment""

>> No.10668950

>>10668842
>work isn't inherently valuable
I thought you were defending the LTV

>> No.10668964

>>10668938
That's because producers can afford to drop prices since less profit is needed to cover for the costs of production.

>> No.10668966

>>10668950
I am. Your retarded conception of LTV != LTV

>>10668891
to be even more explicit: If something is worth $5 to me, but I can produce it for $2, I won't pay $4 for it.

>> No.10668969

>>10668964
exactly, it requires less labor to produce, so it becomes less valuable

>> No.10668979

>>10668969
Value is not production cost.

>> No.10668998
File: 58 KB, 645x729, you.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10668998

>>10668979
ur done


. . . Next!

>> No.10669022

>>10668998
It seems to me like you're really just saying that labor produces value and that's that, like that were just some obvious fact.

>>10668966
>to be even more explicit: If something is worth $5 to me, but I can produce it for $2, I won't pay $4 for it.

At no point in understanding this do you need to introduce the LTV.

>> No.10669041

>>10667402
Some people are raised by wolves, I was BitMined by a stork.

>> No.10669051

>>10669022
>At no point in understanding this do you need to introduce the LTV.
If something takes no labor for me to produce it is worth $0 to me

>> No.10669055

>>10668969
It becomes less valuable due to the consumer.

>> No.10669064
File: 12 KB, 645x473, 31C11C61-E62E-4E4D-AD10-A76EA124A90C.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10669064

>>10668998
>becomes BTFO
>posts wojak for damage control

>> No.10669068

>>10668275
>>10668359
>I definitely know what commodity fetishism refers to: The posts
Here's a tip genius, if you can even be asked to google a term before 'le owning le lefties with muh superior rational logic' on the internet you'd be better off just killing yourself

>> No.10669072

>>10667462
>you could have killed people and risked jail instead of working
>therefore it was a free choice
Is there anything worse than liberals?

>> No.10669074

>>10668927
This. Utopian societies have existed but they were ruined when they became capitalists.

>> No.10669081

>>10669074
>being this much of a brainlet

>> No.10669101

>>10668275
Fucking idiot. You realize that in a socialist society technology would be much cheaper and advanced, right? Capitalism is holding progress back.

>> No.10669106

>>10669081
>>10669101

>> No.10669134
File: 50 KB, 300x300, capitalism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10669134

>>10667312
>The labor theory of value is correct.
The communist said for he 394853489th time as market based economies kept proving him wrong.

>> No.10669139

>>10668756
>so why don't you go mine gold and sell it?

is this a serious question? probably not but i'm gonna answer it regardless. me going somewhere and mining gold would cost much more than selling the tiny amounts of gold that i could mine by myself would get me.

>> No.10669149

>>10669051
>If something takes no labor for me to produce it is worth $0 to me

If it takes no labor to produce, it doesn't exist.

>> No.10669170

>>10667439
Can we just all take a moment and just realize how retarded this post is. I mean, forget the labor hours and everything. Time-units being an important part of Marxist philosophy and all...

But why calories. Why did you have to have a variable denoting how many calories? We don't consume food with the objective of gaining exactly a specific amount of calories ya dingus! That's not how consumption works!

Use-value, in some commodities is completely defined by them being used as objects of exchange.

This guy is fucking retarded though, holy shit.

>> No.10669171

>>10669149
what about eggs that fall into your basket from a tree you were resting under? checkmate commies

>> No.10669178

>>10667466
This is, by definition, a VERY underrated post. The only person responding to it has missed the point. He is literally DESTROYING that dude's argument in one post. Fucking plens on /lit/ I swear.

>> No.10669202

Hopefully I can debunk this with simple logic.

If I spent one hour to produce one good and no one likes that Good, it is worth less than a good someone else spent one hour to produce that everyone likes.

If someone is going to tell me that the labor theory of value would mandate that no one would produce that Good, they are wrong. Because the simple production or cultivation of a certain good, makes it more available, thus more attractive in price for the consumers. Producing something, in this way, can actually increase demand, depending on the utility it can give the person who wants it.

Clearly in this example, even though equal amounts of labor were spent cultivating the products, while person A cultivated his product, it fell in popularity, while person B's cultivations grew in popularity, for the aforementioned reasons. Clearly the if the Labor theory of value can be proven wrong in a simple 4chan post, it isn't fit to design an economic theory around such a theory.

>> No.10669218

>>10669202
You're attacking what you think LTV is, not what it actually is.

>> No.10669232

>>10669149
it takes no labor for me to produce saliva. i'm not going to buy bottled saliva.

>>10669170
im using calories as an indicator of equivalence. you are simply too stupid to understand this