/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12542881]

Find a flaw.

[Anonymous No.12542889]

Nobody gives a shit how much a yard of linen is worth.

[Anonymous No.12542890]

the title's wrong, should be "The Capital"

[Anonymous No.12542896]

>>12542889
i do. i'm a linen-head.

[Anonymous No.12542897]

Labor theory of value

[Anonymous No.12542906]

>>12542897
what's wrong with the LTV?

[Anonymous No.12542910]

>>12542881
>Labor theory of value
>economic calculation problem
>completely ahistorical

[Anonymous No.12542911]

>>12542906
nothing. he thinks the LTV means "workers deserve all the money"

[Anonymous No.12542913]

the realm of ideas can trump material conditions in determining a societies economic, and specifically capitalistic, character....marx does not allow for this.

[Anonymous No.12542916]

>>12542881
Marx denied the existence of God but turned over all His functions to History, which is inevitably directed to a goal fulfilling of man and which takes the place of Providence. One might as well be a Christian if one is so naive.

[Anonymous No.12542918]

>>12542910
>>12542906

[Anonymous No.12542919]

>>12542910
>ahistorical
literal brainlet cope vocab
>economic calculation problem
what is linear optimization?
>labor theory of value
I doubt you know what this means and are just repeating buzzwords you've heard.

[Anonymous No.12542931]

>>12542881
He never held an actual job so what does he know of the working class?

[Anonymous No.12542942]

god I hate these threads
/lit/ should be fiction only

[Anonymous No.12542943]

>>12542931
jordan peterson has never been depressed so what does he know of depression?

[Anonymous No.12542959]

>>12542942
we should either have a separate board for literature (/litmk2/) or we need a /yootoober/ and /self-help/ board and politcs threads should be sent to /pol/

[Anonymous No.12542966]

>>12542881
In some backwaters, autodidacts may still thrill to the rhetoric of “Workers of the world …” But in the centers where people keep up-to-date, Marx has been dead for a long time. Capital just does not persuade its readers that it is the truth about economics or about the inevitable future of man.

[Anonymous No.12543007]

>>12542943
He has actually been depressed for most of his life

[Anonymous No.12543038]

>>12542943
Peterson is a hack as well. Untermensch animal driven by fear of another holocaust who makes rambling sets of rules to make you complacent and easily ruled over by the "benevolent" master he thinks we should bow to in order to prevent that next holocaust.

[Anonymous No.12543116]

>>12542906
Value is subjective.

[Anonymous No.12543134]

>>12542881
ltv

[Anonymous No.12543147]

>>12543116
by "value," do you mean the same thing that the LTV means by "value"?
>>12543134
see >>12542906

[Anonymous No.12543164]

>>12543147
it may have seemed correct at the time but sign value has become just as important in our society if not moreso

[Anonymous No.12543168]

>>12543147
LTV got btfo by basic psychology

[Anonymous No.12543180]

>>12543164
sign value isn't talking about the same thing as the LTV is.
>>12543168
how?

[Anonymous No.12543191]

>>12543180
what is ltv talking about and where did marx say that is what he was talking about

[Anonymous No.12543214]

>>12543191
"value" in the LTV refers to a theoretical unobservable that governs the rate at which freely reproducible commodities generally exchange for in capitalist economies. it's not intended to replace subjective utility/desire; it's an entirely different ontological referent.
>where did marx say that is what he was talking about
Capital.

[Anonymous No.12543221]

>>12542906

Not >>12542897
and I wouldn't call it "labor theory of value" but instead "Mehrwerttheorie" ("Theory of additional/surplus value").

You can basically summarize the whole "Kapital" in the sentence: the profit of the capitalist is the value of work he doesn't pay his workers for. Marx calls said "value of work" the workers aren't paid for "Mehrwert" (additional/surplus value).

But there's a problem with this theory. Even if you accept it as a theory about the intrinsic value of a commodity (opposed to its extrinsic value which is based on supply and demand), it's limited.
Marx only regards the physical value of goods and not its ideal value (intellectual property), too. He does it, because he thinks the ideal value is only a relative and time-limited competitive advantage which will be recouped eventually and is therefore negligible.

If you look at todays industry, a lot of it is based on ideal value instead of pure physical labour. Look at all those Start-Ups in the Valley for example.
As long as said ideal value is "inserted" into a company by the capitalist (the owner) himself, Marx' "Mehrwerttheorie" is falsified.

Nevertheless, ideal value can be shopped, too. A capitalist can simply purchase it and make more money of it than he pays for it (and therefore simply exploit its "Mehrwert").

tl;dr: Considering certain capitalists Marx' Mehrwerttheorie is true, considering others it's wrong. Therefore, it's too limited to portray reality.

[Anonymous No.12543240]

>>12542881
Marx doesn't tackle the problem of debt. Even many honest Marxists will admit this limitation.

[Anonymous No.12543241]

>>12543180
>how?
Because nobody gives a shit how hard you work. In fact people like seeing people working longer rather than harder. People think the longer you work must mean you are working harder. For example a Harvard study showed that people were more satisfied with websites that find flights when they took longer to load or search because they thought it was working harder
>http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/buell%20norton%20hbr.pdf

[Anonymous No.12543265]

>>12543240
ummmmm

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/index.htm

[Anonymous No.12543272]

>>12543221
>Marx only regards the physical value of goods and not its ideal value (intellectual property), too.
well, the theory only purports to apply to freely reproducible goods. so those that have copyright restrictions wouldn't be included.
>If you look at todays industry, a lot of it is based on ideal value instead of pure physical labour. Look at all those Start-Ups in the Valley for example.
my first point aside, the theory specifically states that value is determined by the labor-time involved in the REPRODUCTION of a good. so it seems to me that the intellectual labor you're talking about wouldn't be relevant.
>>12543241
the LTV doesn't make the claim that people will necessarily desire commodities that take more labor-time to reproduce MORE than others.

[Anonymous No.12543281]

>>12542897
this

[Anonymous No.12543288]

>>12543281
>>12542906

[Anonymous No.12543303]

>>12543272
>the LTV doesn't make the claim that people will necessarily desire commodities that take more labor-time to reproduce MORE than others
Marx argues that value is determined by the amount of labour. Which is completely wrong. Value is subjective it's just what two people agree upon not how much fucking labour was put into something

[Anonymous No.12543317]

>>12543303
>Value is subjective it's just what two people agree upon not how much fucking labour was put into something
it sounds like you're talking about market price.

[Anonymous No.12543331]

>>12543317
The labor theory of value is a normative classical theory of value that argues that the price of a good or service should be equal to the total amount of labor value required to produce it.

[Anonymous No.12543340]

>>12542881
its written by karl marx

[Anonymous No.12543347]

>>12543331
thanks for posting the first line of the LTV's wikipedia page. Marx's LTV isn't normative, nor is it about market prices.

[Anonymous No.12543354]

>>12543347
Then what is it about, Marxian scholar?

[Anonymous No.12543357]

>>12543272
>the theory specifically states that value is determined by the labor-time involved in the REPRODUCTION of a good. so it seems to me that the intellectual labor you're talking about wouldn't be relevant.
If I take a shit and stir it for 24 hours, I put 24 hours of labor-time into it, but it's still a worthless peace of diarrhea.

[Anonymous No.12543359]

>>12543147
Utility and price as values are the same thing.

[Anonymous No.12543381]

>>12543354
I've explained it briefly here: >>12543214
>>12543357
1) diarrhea isn't a commodity sold on a market.
2) value isn't determined by the amount of time you or I specifically take producing a commodity, but rather by the "socially necessary labor-time" (i.e., the average amount of time it takes workers of average skill and productivity to reproduce a commodity).
>>12543359
regardless, the LTV doesn't purport to explain market prices OR utility.

[Anonymous No.12543386]

>>12543381
>regardless, the LTV doesn't purport to explain market prices OR utility

Yes it does. You don't understand LTV.

[Anonymous No.12543399]

>>12543381
Value is determined by the amount of time you take as I already explained. The layperson doesn't know what hard work looks like in every profession. Second you can't just dismiss all definitions of LTV and say that value isn't utility or market price and define it as some unseen variable.

[Anonymous No.12543412]

>>12543381
I'll give you a shot. Put your clearest definition of LTV out there

[Anonymous No.12543418]

>>12542881
Being based in outdated classical economic models. It's not really Marx's fault, given that he was just working according to the mainstream economic thought of his time

[Anonymous No.12543426]

>>12543386
I'm all ears - explain where I've gone wrong.
>>12543399
>Value is determined by the amount of time you take as I already explained.
no, it's determined by the SNLT.
>The layperson doesn't know what hard work looks like in every profession.
so?
>Second you can't just dismiss all definitions of LTV and say that value isn't utility or market price and define it as some unseen variable.
if you'd like to explain why the LTV is different than how I've represented it, go ahead.
>>12543412
Marx's LTV posits that there is a theoretical unobservable (value) that determines the rate at which freely reproducible commodities generally exchange for each other in capitalist economies. this value is determined by the SNLT (the average amount of time it takes workers of average skill and productivity to reproduce a commodity at a given time and place). market prices will fluctuate around this value due to supply and demand, but we should expect under certain conditions that value will coincide with the equilibrium price of a good.
>>12543418
which outdated models?

[Anonymous No.12543433]

>>12543426
the LTV does purport to explain market prices OR utility.

[Anonymous No.12543436]

>>12543433
again, if you'd like to explain why that's the case, go ahead.

[Anonymous No.12543440]

>>12543436
I just did.

[Anonymous No.12543443]

>>12543440
where?

[Anonymous No.12543454]

I have never read Marx, but the only thing I see here is the Marxanon explaining thoroughly his position and his rivals just repeating buzzwords.

[Anonymous No.12543461]

The LTV itself doesn't explain much. Read over Capital itself because it's difficult to summarize.

[Anonymous No.12543497]

>>12543426
Service is a reproducible good. A locksmith going to install a lock in someone's door is a service. The locksmith and the customer agree on a price. The customer has no idea what hard work is (why would a businessman then too especially according to Marx). Let's say the locksmith works really hard and doesn't take long at all. The customer will feel cheated if they have to pay for a high price because it took no time to install the lock. Now let's say the locksmith takes his time, not working too hard. The customer will feel like the locksmith actually worked hard and will agree to pay more. This is why value is subjective. You can't say value is nothing as well. In case with the locksmith the value could easily be the customer's satisfaction and what they paid for the service.

[Anonymous No.12543552]

>>12543497
>This is why value is subjective.
that is why market prices are subjective, yeah.
> In case with the locksmith the value could easily be the customer's satisfaction and what they paid for the service.
"customer satisfaction" is not what Marx means by "value."

[Anonymous No.12543557]

>>12543381
>value isn't determined by the amount of time you or I specifically take producing a commodity, but rather by the "socially necessary labor-time" (i.e., the average amount of time it takes workers of average skill and productivity to reproduce a commodity).
You're right, but you're missing the point.

It's 1920 and you want to produce a car, how many "socially necessary labor-time" do you have to put into it? 200h, 300h, maybe 1000h.
Now, it's 2019 and you want to produce a car, how many "socially necessary labor-time" do you have to put into it? 50h? There are some factories you pretty much only have to press a button to produce a car.
What's the difference between 1920 and 2019? It's all those ideas who have been put into production processes. The sheer amount of intellectual value.

And what's the difference between a piece of shit I stirred for 24 hours and an iPhone I produced in 24 hours. It's the very idea of the iPhone: its utility, its design, its whatever...
That's why people pay 1000 bucks for an iPhone and I remain stuck on my stirred diarrhea.

And that's why Marxist experiments all over the world have always failed: Marx never valued the human mind and the progressions it can produce. If you don't value ideas and progression, well, you simply become obsolete.

[Anonymous No.12543567]

>>12543557
>What's the difference between 1920 and 2019? It's all those ideas who have been put into production processes. The sheer amount of intellectual value.
what difference does that make?
>And what's the difference between a piece of shit I stirred for 24 hours and an iPhone I produced in 24 hours. It's the very idea of the iPhone: its utility, its design, its whatever...
That's why people pay 1000 bucks for an iPhone and I remain stuck on my stirred diarrhea.
all commodities are ultimately the result of innovation / intellectual labor, yeah. again, why does that matter?
>And that's why Marxist experiments all over the world have always failed: Marx never valued the human mind and the progressions it can produce. If you don't value ideas and progression, well, you simply become obsolete.
how did Marx not value the human mind / progression?

[Anonymous No.12543608]

>>12543567
>how did Marx not value the human mind / progression?
That's the very base of his whole theory. If Marx valued ideas, he couldn't say: all surplus value is the value of work a capitalist doesn't pay his workers for, since it could be the value of the intellectual property the capitalist puts into his company, too. Instead, he expressively denies it (as I mentioned beforehand).

[Anonymous No.12543646]

>>12543608
the intellectual labor put into conceptualizing a commodity is not part of the reproduction process of that commodity. how, then, could surplus value be derived therefrom?

[Anonymous No.12543754]

>>12543646
>the intellectual labor put into conceptualizing a commodity is not part of the reproduction process of that commodity.
It is.
If you look at it closely: A commodity produced isn't a reproduction of a certain commodity - it is the actualisation of the idea of said commodity (otherwise, there's no way a certain commodity could be produced for the first time). Therefore, the idea of a commodity is always part of its production process.

The strange thing about intellectual labor is it's product. If you produce something, you have to put the physical labor necessary to produce it into it over and over again. But the intellectual labor, its idea takes, has to be put into it only once - afterwards, the idea is always there (as long as it's not forgotten). Nevertheless, it always contributes to the whole value of the good afterwards.

[Anonymous No.12543779]

There is no flaw other than Marx didn't understand how adaptable capitalism would become because of imperialism, which isn't his fault since it happened long after he died.

[Anonymous No.12543786]

>>12543754
>But the intellectual labor, its idea takes, has to be put into it only once
this is my point. since this intellectual labor does not need to be re-exerted in the reproduction of the commodities, surplus value couldn't be derived from it.

[Anonymous No.12543787]

>>12542881
LTV should represented as theorem with a convincing proof, but instead he stated as axiom

[Anonymous No.12543799]

>>12543787
it is presented as a theory. he supposes its truth for the purpose of identifying its broader implications.

[Anonymous No.12543894]

>>12543443
> the LTV does purport to explain market prices OR utility.

[Anonymous No.12543900]

>>12543552
what marx "means" by something is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.12543903]

>>12543116
Why don't we all just subjectively value ourselves into millionaires then?

[Anonymous No.12543905]

>>12543786
I'd argue, it's the only way surplus value can be generated in a perfect world (read: if capitalists don't exploit their workers to generate it).

Let's take a look at the preceding example of the cars produced in 1920 and 2019.
Let's say the cars produced in 1920 and 2019 are both worth 20000$ (no inflation between 1920 and 2019).
You have to put 1000h of labor-time into the car in 1920 and 100h in 2019. Since labor-time is worth the same both in 1920 and 2019 (to make it a bad example, let's say 20$/h), the production costs in 1920 are 20000$ (capitalist can't generate any surplus value), and the production costs in 2019 are 2000$. Let's triple them to reflect an increase in equipage costs: 6000$. The capitalist still earns 14000$/car instead of 0$/car.
Magic? Or an surplus value generated by progression.

Now, take Marx' theory instead: since the workers in 1920 have to put 1000h of work into a car and the workers in 2019 have to put 100h of work into a car (which are all 20$/h), what's the capitalist interested in: pro- or regression? If you can generate surplus value only by exploiting you workers, is it easier not to pay for, let's say 100h of work if someone works 1000h or 100h of work if someone works 100h?

[Anonymous No.12543908]

>>12543903
well you've already subjectively vauled yourself into being retarded...

[Anonymous No.12543918]

>>12543905
what a retarded theory.

[Anonymous No.12543943]

>>12543908
>>12543918
I call others retarded on the interweb, I'm a super intellecuuul.

[Anonymous No.12543955]

>>12543943
One does not need to be very intelligent to identify a retard. Though yeah I am an intellectual.

[Anonymous No.12543961]

>>12543894
yes, that's the claim I'm asking you to provide evidence for.
>>12543900
if by "value" you aren't referring to the same ontological referent that the LTV uses "value" to mean, you aren't addressing the theory.
>>12543905
this is such an odd example. what do you mean by cars are "worth" $20,000? their market price at a given time and place? why would that ever be the case in a scenario where wages paid out in the production of a car equal $20,000? why would only wages make up production costs? what about physical capital goods?
>If you can generate surplus value only by exploiting you workers, is it easier not to pay for, let's say 100h of work if someone works 1000h or 100h of work if someone works 100h?
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this.

[Anonymous No.12543966]

>>12543955
>Though yeah I am an intellectual.

[Anonymous No.12543975]

>>12543961
> yes, that's the claim I'm asking you to provide evidence for.

And I did.

> you aren't addressing the theory.

Yeah, I'm not. Whatever he might have thought value was, he was wrong. I don't have to engage with incorrect ideas.

>>12543966
Yeah man.

[Anonymous No.12543994]

>>12543905
>it's the only way surplus value can be generated in a perfect world (read: if capitalists don't exploit their workers to generate it).
you don't know what surplus value is. surplus value is by definition value derived from the exploitation of workers. to say "surplus value not generated by the exploitation of workers" is akin to saying "married bachelor." now, you can disagree that surplus value is the source of profit, but that would be a very different claim.
>>12543975
>And I did.
you're saying that the sentence "the LTV does purport to explain market prices OR utility" is evidence for the claim "the LTV does purport to explain market prices OR utility"?
>Yeah, I'm not. Whatever he might have thought value was, he was wrong. I don't have to engage with incorrect ideas.
great, so we agree you're not addressing the theory, and therefore have no actual argument against the theory.

[Anonymous No.12544015]

>>12543799
I'm sorry, I'm not good at english, but
I think your explanation doesn't give any valueable information to the problem caused by stating to an axiom

[Anonymous No.12544024]

>>12542913
you're wrong
CAPITAL does not allow for this

[Anonymous No.12544055]

>>12543994
>you're saying that the sentence "the LTV does purport to explain market prices OR utility"

You claimed something without evidence. You don't understand what LTV is if you think otherwise. Which you do. So you don't.

> great, so we agree you're not addressing the theory

Nah man. Truth is separate from any given thinker. What marx "means" by value has no bearing on what value actually is.

[Anonymous No.12544058]

>>12544024
Ideas happen before stuff. Dummy.

[Anonymous No.12544062]

>>12543357
>>12543381

>herp shit is worthless no matter what you do with it
>derp that's a superfluous observation because shit isn't a commodity
>t. neither one of us knows about the modern money-laundering art market

Even the person discusing Marx in detail should know very well the genius of capitalism to commodify anything and everything, hammer and sickle t-shirts, say.

[Anonymous No.12544083]

>>12543994
>now, you can disagree that surplus value is the source of profit, but that would be a very different claim.
That's not a different claim, that's the very definition of "Mehrwert" (surplus value).

>you don't know what surplus value is. surplus value is by definition value derived from the exploitation of workers.
That's not the definition of surplus value, it was simply Marx' answer to the question how surplus value is even possible.

t. tries to tell a German what Mehrwert is...

[Anonymous No.12544096]

>>12544055
>You claimed something without evidence. You don't understand what LTV is if you think otherwise. Which you do. So you don't.
I'm not even asking for textual evidence, necessarily. if you can explain to me (beyond just repeating your claim) how Marx's LTV purports to explain market prices and/or utility, I'd be amazed.
>Nah man. Truth is separate from any given thinker. What marx "means" by value has no bearing on what value actually is.
you're making the claim that Marx's understanding of value is incorrect. in order for that to be a justified claim, you'd have to mean the same thing by "value" that Marx means by "value". do we disagree on that?
>>12544062
pieces of art aren't freely reproducible commodities. the LTV doesn't purport to explain them.
>>12544083
>That's not a different claim, that's the very definition of "Mehrwert" (surplus value).
the claim "surplus value can be derived from the intellectual labor prior to a commodity's conception" is a different claim from "surplus value is not the source of profit."
>That's not the definition of surplus value, it was simply Marx' answer to the question how surplus value is even possible.
you're saying that surplus value isn't solely derived from the exploitation of workers, for Marx?

[Anonymous No.12544106]

>>12544096
> how Marx's LTV purports to explain market prices and/or utility,

You don't understand LTV at all.

> do we disagree on that?

Yea. I don't have to engage with completely retarded ideas. It's just wrong. I don't have to qualify that.

[Anonymous No.12544114]

>>12544106
>You don't understand LTV at all.
yeah, great argument.
>Yea. I don't have to engage with completely retarded ideas. It's just wrong. I don't have to qualify that.
great. so if you have no arguments you should have just said so in the first place.

[Anonymous No.12544129]

>>12543214
>LTV refers to a theoretical unobservable
>it's an ... ontological referent

is this the power of Marxist metaphysics?

[Anonymous No.12544141]

>>12544096
>>That's not a different claim, that's the very definition of "Mehrwert" (surplus value).
>the claim "surplus value can be derived from the intellectual labor prior to a commodity's conception" is a different claim from "surplus value is not the source of profit."
>>That's not the definition of surplus value, it was simply Marx' answer to the question how surplus value is even possible.
>you're saying that surplus value isn't solely derived from the exploitation of workers, for Marx?
Dude, either my English is a lot worse than I thought or you're really stubborn.

Definition of surplus value:
Surplus value = (value of a thing) - (value put into said thing) -> source of profit

Marx
Surplus value = (labor-time put into a thing) - (labor-time paid for) -> exploitation of workers

[Anonymous No.12544147]

>>12544096

>pieces of art aren't freely reproducible commodities
>is obliged to ignore things like prints, "multiples", etc
>will be obliged to define "freely reproducible commodities" so as to preclude the above obvious counter-examples

So what makes serial artworks, which are clearly commodities and clearly "reproducible" in the everyday sense of the word, not "freely reproducible" in this Marxian sense? The fixture of the artists' signature, who will die one day? But this too is just one of many methods of production of commodities.

I call shenigans on you, which is to say—on Marx.

[Anonymous No.12544155]

>>12542897
>One god-like business hero "invent" and "innovate" then "take a risk"
In an actual business all of these works are also done by workers.

[Anonymous No.12544162]

>>12544129
neither of those terms are proprietary to Marx.
>>12544141
>Definition of surplus value:
>Surplus value = (value of a thing) - (value put into said thing) -> source of profit
what do you mean by "value put into said thing" and how does it differ from "value of thing"?
>Marx
>Surplus value = (labor-time put into a thing) - (labor-time paid for) -> exploitation of workers
this I agree with, yeah.
>>12544147
copies of artworks, presuming that there are no copyright restrictions, are freely reproducible, yeah. but a copy of an artwork is obviously distinct from the original artwork itself.

[Anonymous No.12544179]

>>12542881
Marx thought that revolution would be inevitable when the proletariat are made too financially powerless to engage meaningfully with society.
In response, the banks invented Credit Cards, so that the proletariat could and inevitably would experience financial power for a small moment, and in exchange fall into self-made debt-slavery, legally justifying their own subjugation and removing them as a threat of revolt.

[Anonymous No.12544196]

>>12542897
>understand its needs
>taking a risk

pick one

[Anonymous No.12544200]

>>12542906
It killed MILLIONS

[Anonymous No.12544203]

>>12544200
a descriptive theory killed millions?

[Anonymous No.12544219]

>>12544162
>neither of those terms are proprietary to Marx.

Where did I imply they did?

Feel free to give a metaphysical explanation as to how you can have the referent of the term "value" be a "theoretical unobservable."

[Anonymous No.12544224]

>>12544200
to save BILLIONS

[Anonymous No.12544236]

>>12544219
>Where did I imply they did?
I thought you were calling those terms "Marxist metaphysics."
>Feel free to give a metaphysical explanation as to how you can have the referent of the term "value" be a "theoretical unobservable."
I'm not sure what you're asking. is there a reason why the referent of the term "value" COULDN'T be a theoretical unobservable in the context of a scientific theory?

[Anonymous No.12544254]

>>12544162

Okay, on the art thing, you seem really and honestly not to be understanding what I was referring to at this point. I'm resisting the urge to be cheeky because I want your take once I expand a bit.

In the art world, there are things called prints and multiples. Depending on the artists' manufacturing process, arbitrarily many of these might be made, but in practice a series might consist of a few dozen to a few hundred individual objects, pressed off the same woodblock or whatever. These are authentic artworks which again are of course commodities (use-value it's nice to look at, exchange-value I'll pay money for that). Naturally, prints and multiples are not one-of-a-kind objects, like a Mona Lisa, and they might be put out by an artist as cheaper goods for sale than their more ambitious work.

So I am not referring to a xerox copy of a Mona Lisa. I am specifically referring to the case where an artist uses a manufacturing process to reproduce many authentic copies of his artwork. And in this case, I put the same question to you again, etc, etc.

[Anonymous No.12544272]

>>12544254
again, supposing there were no copyright restrictions and competitors could enter the market for the production of those works, they would be freely reproducible, yeah.

[Anonymous No.12544273]

>>12544162
>what do you mean by "value put into said thing" and how does it differ from "value of thing"?
That's the very problem of surplus value.
There's a difference between the value put into something (production costs) and the value put out of something (selling price - well, not really, but you know what I mean). How do you explain that difference?

Marx said it results from exploiting the workers, but that's just a possible answer not a necessary one. And you can very well question it.
For example, you can also locate it in the continuous instantiation of a certain idea (which has to be produced only once and therefore produces surplus value whenever it is actualized again). It might be due to negotiating skill. Due to a clever use of supply and demand. Whatever.
Marx simply didn't give a satisfactory answer to it.

[Anonymous No.12544306]

>>12544273
>There's a difference between the value put into something (production costs) and the value put out of something (selling price - well, not really, but you know what I mean). How do you explain that difference?
this is a misreading of Marx. the value of a good is simply the socially necessary labor-time required for its reproduction at a given time and place. the very reason why this is more than the production costs is because of the existence of surplus value (i.e., the amount of time the laborer works for which he is not compensated in wages). the market price is not a different form of value; it's a different concept from value altogether.

[Anonymous No.12544326]

>>12544106
this poster is probably the biggest retard ive seen in a while on this board. kys dude wow

[Anonymous No.12544346]

>>12544114
> yeah, great argument.
Thanks.
> great. so if you have no arguments you should have just said so in the first place
Yeah my argument is that your "means" argument is stupid. no one cares what that toad "means" by something.

>>12544224
It still has a chance to kill billions.

>>12544326
Yeah I don't care.

[Anonymous No.12544357]

>>12544346
>no one cares what that toad "means" by something.
I know you don't. that's why you don't have an argument against the theory.

[Anonymous No.12544362]

>>12544306
You don't get it. Yes, that's what Marx said. But it's not true only because Marx said it.

Marx was confronted with the problem of surplus value. He answered it in a certain way. The way he answered it is how you described it.
But that doesn't make his answer the only possible answer to the problem of surplus value. And it doesn't make his answer the right answer.

You may question his solution to the problem of surplus value with a lot of the points made in this thread (and myriads of other ones). Ask yourself if it stands this questioning or if it doesn't.
It's up to (you).

[Anonymous No.12544379]

>>12544357
the theory is wrong. that's why i don't need a argument against it. i'm describing what value *actually* is.

[Anonymous No.12544388]

>>12544379
>the theory is wrong. that's why i don't need a argument against it.
great stuff

[Anonymous No.12544399]

>>12543116
USE-value is subjective. what happens is that people commit “socially necessary labor” (as in labor which satisfies those use values) and its exchange value is based on the amount of resources that production consumed.

[Anonymous No.12544418]

>>12544236

>I'm not sure what you're asking. is there a reason why the referent of the term "value" COULDN'T be a theoretical unobservable in the context of a scientific theory?

That's not how this works. You made the claim that the referent for "value" was a "theoretical unobservable". It's up to you to back this up with an actual metaphysical explanation. You've given nothing to say how exactly the term "value" attaches itself to a "theoretical unobservable." You've done nothing to show what the ontological make-up of what the "theoretical unobservable" is. You've done nothing to convince me that is a concrete object (since your minimal set of claims has said its both theoretical and unobservable, even if you take the realist position that there exist concrete unobservables), but some sort of abstract thing. Yet at the same time your minimal set of claims hasn't explained how this works, since abstraction (based on most theories of abstract objects) is closely tied to the concrete in terms of the mental process of abstraction. Additionally, if it is an abstraction, then how exactly does it play a role in the causal theory you are putting forth ("the value determines x")?

What I am asking for is a better account of your metaphysical claims, which you originally asserted, but didn't back up in any way at all.

[Anonymous No.12544489]

>>12544418
it's an abstraction. its role in the theory is as an explanans for the center-of-gravity around which market prices tend to fluctuate.

[Anonymous No.12544534]

>>12542881
the labour theory of value
>>12542897
this

[Anonymous No.12544575]

>>12544388
> great stuff
Thanks.

>>12544399
Value is subjective. Full stop.

[Anonymous No.12544630]

>>12544379

[Anonymous No.12544643]

>>12544630
wow you got me

[Anonymous No.12545574]

>>12544399
No it quite literally means all value retard. Your labour does not have inherent value.

[Anonymous No.12545717]

>>12542919
>He thinks linear optimization can solve the ECP

[Anonymous No.12545744]

>>12542881
It's the most outdated book in the canon of literature of humankind and completely flawless in earning that title.

[Anonymous No.12545747]

>>12545574
>>12544575
you read none of post. in a just world you would be dragged out onto the street and beaten publically for such willful ignorance

[Anonymous No.12545791]

>>12544058
Before you can think, you need to eat.

BOOM Materialism

[Anonymous No.12545794]

>>12542881
(((Karl Marx)))

[Anonymous No.12546309]

>>12545747
Advocating violence because people won't accept your religion... wow I've never seen that before!!

>>12545791
That's a retarded miniaturization of materialism. lol.

[Anonymous No.12546500]

He assumes the labor that goes into making a product is what makes it valuable.

[Anonymous No.12546640]

>>12544534
>>12546500
what's your argument against the labor theory of value?

[Anonymous No.12546679]

>>12546640
There is no argument against it because the labor theory of value doesn't accomplish what it intends to do. It doesn't explain peoples subjective preferences and why some things are sold for a little and a lot regardless of how much labor goes into it.

[Anonymous No.12546731]

>>12546679
it doesn't intend to explain people's subjective preferences. the explanation for why some products with more labor emobodied within them sell for less than products with less labor embodied in them (i.e., market price distortions) is differences in supply and demand.

[Anonymous No.12546741]

>>12545747
In a just world you would have killed yourself already. At least your funeral will provide more economic stimulation than you ever have in your miserable existence. Your dead jew's theories aren't worth the shit in your bowels. The only thing he's written that was worth half a damn was that the proletariat should be armed.

[Anonymous No.12546784]

>>12546731
I'm not saying the theory is intended to explain subjective preferences. The theory is meant to explain value, but without accounting for peoples subjective preferences it fails to do that. It doesn't accomplish what it's intended to do.

If value is explained by supply and demand then what use is the labor theory of value?

[Anonymous No.12546831]

>>12546784
>I'm not saying the theory is intended to explain subjective preferences.
you said that the theory fails to explain what it intends to explain, then followed by saying it doesn't explain people's subjective preferences. I assumed you thought the theoy intended to explain subjective preferences.
>The theory is meant to explain value, but without accounting for peoples subjective preferences it fails to do that.
again, I'm looking for the argument for this claim.
>If value is explained by supply and demand then what use is the labor theory of value?
market prices are explained by supply and demand. value is distinct from market prices in the LTV.

[Anonymous No.12546863]

>>12546831
I don't know if you're just misunderstanding or what. The theory is intending to explain value. It fails to explain value because it doesn't account for subjective preferences which affect value. Therefore, it fails to explain what it indented to explain. I can't make this any more simple.

Okay, value is distinct from market prices. I'm basically just rephrasing a question that I've asked and you haven't attempted an answer but why does the distinction between value and price need to be made? I say market price is the best reflection of actual value and any more theorizing is superfluous. What use is the labor theory of value?

[Anonymous No.12546930]

>>12546863
>The theory is intending to explain value. It fails to explain value because it doesn't account for subjective preferences which affect value.
I'm asking you to explain how subjective preferences affect value (as it is used in the theory). so far, all you've shown is that subjective preferences affect market prices.
>but why does the distinction between value and price need to be made? I say market price is the best reflection of actual value and any more theorizing is superfluous. What use is the labor theory of value?
the LTV is a theory of equilibrium prices, not market prices. the idea is that value (which under certain conditions should coincide with equilibrium price) is the center-of-gravity around which market prices fluctuate due to supply and demand. so just equating market price with value isn't addressing the theory.

[Anonymous No.12547021]

>>12546500
What does make it valuable? If you have no labour you have no product in the first place.

[Anonymous No.12547027]

>>12546930
Market price is the best reflection of value, so because some people subjectively value some things more than other people, they are willing to pay a higher price. It seems value is fully explained by supply and demand. The actual value of an object changes based on the subjective preferences of individuals.

Why does the distinction between market prices and value, or market prices and equilibrium prices need to be made? If you don't or can't answer the question that's okay but don't continue repeating what you're saying because it's insulting.

[Anonymous No.12547043]

>>12542881
Written by a kike.

[Anonymous No.12547045]

>>12547021
Diamonds aren't valuable because of the hole I dug to get them. They're valued according to peoples subjective dispositions towards those diamonds.

[Anonymous No.12547060]

>>12542897
>some of the money
hahaha

[Anonymous No.12547115]

>>12547027
>Market price is the best reflection of value, so because some people subjectively value some things more than other people, they are willing to pay a higher price. It seems value is fully explained by supply and demand. The actual value of an object changes based on the subjective preferences of individuals.
market prices are a good reflection of how people subjectively value things, yeah. but again, that's not the sense in which "value" is used in the theory. when you say that subjective preferences affect "value," you aren't using "value" to refer to the same referent as I am when I say subjective preferences don't affect "value."
>Why does the distinction between market prices and value, or market prices and equilibrium prices need to be made?
because supply and demand don't explain equilibrium prices, so something else must be appealed to in order to find out what determines what Smith called a commodity's "natural price."

[Anonymous No.12547117]

>Value based on labor
>History understood as a materialist struggle between the masses and the economic elites
>History is linear
>Revolution happening in Germany
>Literally said cavemen were communists

And so on, might as well ask what isn't flawed about Marxist thought.

[Anonymous No.12547124]

Unironically the whole book.

[Anonymous No.12547156]

>>12547115
Yes dude I know. You're making a distinction regarding value. JUSTIFY. THE. DISTINCTION. Why should I believe the term "equilibrium prices" makes any sense or provides any value at all? An equilibrium of arbitrary and random price points, which is what subjective preference gives us, is useless.

[Anonymous No.12547163]

>>12542881
Most marxist girls are ugly and the ones that are cute become lifeless and withered. You rarely see a communist girl and say "she's so beautiful and full of life".

[Anonymous No.12547171]

>>12542881
Repeat after me, comrades: Marx was right.

[Anonymous No.12547179]

>>12547163
You must hate society and therefore yourself to be a revolutionary .

[Anonymous No.12547181]

>>12542916

Pretty much. The printing press alone proves "Dialectical" Materialism is nonsense. You can make one out of wood with minimal skill. According to Marx, it would've been long overdue in ancient Egypt.

[Anonymous No.12547184]

>>12547156
>JUSTIFY. THE. DISTINCTION.
I did. supply and demand don't explain equilibrium prices. so a commodity's value is rooted in something other than subjective preferences.
>Why should I believe the term "equilibrium prices" makes any sense or provides any value at all?
equilibrium prices aren't a concept proprietary to Marx. do you deny there are such things?
>An equilibrium of arbitrary and random price points, which is what subjective preference gives us, is useless.
"useless" with respect to what?

[Anonymous No.12547202]

>>12547181
How can you have such strong opinions about a concept you illustrate that you don't even understand properly?

[Anonymous No.12547209]

>>12547021
And if the product wasn't valuable no one would have made it...

[Anonymous No.12547212]

>>12547184
I've had it with you now. You're not justifying the distinction by reasserting the distinction, that's circular reasoning. I ask you to explain why equilibrium prices should be considered relevant or even sensible and you reply that it's not entirely Marx's idea. As if that fucking matters.

Jesus Christ. It's the same story every time I try to talk to communists on this board.

[Anonymous No.12547213]

>>12547181
>The printing press alone proves "Dialectical" Materialism is nonsense.

Really, how does the printing press prove pic related to be nonsense?

[Anonymous No.12547252]

>>12547212
>You're not justifying the distinction by reasserting the distinction, that's circular reasoning.
I'm not reasserting the distinction. the distinction is between value (and equilibrium prices) and market prices. the justification is that supply and demand don't explain why equilibrium prices are at the magnitude they are at rather than another. it follows from this that a commodity's value is not determined by supply and demand, and therefore not determined by subjective preferences. what do you not understand?
>I ask you to explain why equilibrium prices should be considered relevant
relevant to what?
>or even sensible
you deny that equilibrium prices are sensible? why?

[Anonymous No.12547304]

>>12547202
>>12547213

The material conditions necessary for its invention continuously abound for millennia prior to its invention. Your shitty quips about "not understanding" and posting stupid Ikea instructions suggest you haven't even read Marx proper but just so you know, he explicitly claims Technology is contingent on the Material alone, and tries to banish the incongruities in History, never mind in Reason, by cursing "DIALECTICAL".

[Anonymous No.12547378]

>>12547304
Oh I see. So you're one of those people who think that Marx is a high priest, and that everyone who reads him have to agree with everything he says like dogma, and that everything he said is axiomatically wrong if you can find outliers.

Fact is that a printing press cannot even exist if the material conditions are not met, e.g the existence of paper, the existence of the ideological tools necessary for the propagation of knowledge through books and pamphlets(e.g high literacy among a large subset of the population such that it is even worth producing readable material to sell), the existence of mass production and potential of capital gain from engaging in the process.

[Anonymous No.12547390]

>>12547378
marx was a systemic writer. a flaw in his theory invalidates the rest of it. if you asked him, personally, he would tell everything he thought was correct and perfect.

[Anonymous No.12547397]

>>12547390
>marx was a systemic writer. a flaw in his theory invalidates the rest of it.

lol, complete horseshit dude.

[Anonymous No.12548316]

>>12544379
Has it ever occurred to you that there may be more to debating than people screeching at each other that the their theory is the one that's actually correct? Is this how you usually do it, and expect to win?

[Anonymous No.12548339]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emnYMfjYh1Q

[Anonymous No.12549552]

>>12547397
lol nope.

>>12548316
I haven't raised my voice once.

[Anonymous No.12549869]

>>12549552
>I haven't raised my voice once.
yeah you're typing, anon.

[Anonymous No.12550833]

>>12547252
How do supply & demand not explain equilibrium price? Equilibrium price is precisely where the two intersect. Or is Marx using the term differently?
>>12549552
You haven't made an argument either. When you want to convince people that somebody is wrong, it's good to make arguments.

[Anonymous No.12550873]

>>12542881
karl marx is all in captials and capital is not

[Anonymous No.12551620]

>>12544096
holy shit lmao you're tearing these posters to shreds

[Anonymous No.12551628]

>>12544096
>when you forget your hormone blockers

[Anonymous No.12551757]

>reading dissenting opinions is good because then you get the whole picture
>but /lit/ pseuds are so stupid that they never actually read any other economics book than Marx's Capital and thus become commies

pottery

[Anonymous No.12551786]

>>12542881
I don't know I think the 80 million graves might indicate theres a flaw or two

[Anonymous No.12551900]

>>12542881
>a house made of shit should cost proportionally to working hours spent on it
He was genius

[Anonymous No.12551907]

>>12551786
>80 million graves
Oh, come on. That is totally unfair. You are implying that the communists didn't know how to dig mass graves.

[Anonymous No.12551935]

>>12542913
Bullocks

[Anonymous No.12552035]

>>12551900
Idiot

[Anonymous No.12552335]

>>12551786
If that sort of triviality doesn't faze a capitalist, why should a Marxist care?

[Anonymous No.12552845]

>>12543331
That isn't true at all. Marx is very clear in making a distinction between something's "value" and something's "price". The Labour Theory of Value simply suggests that the labour put into the production of commodity must be taken into account when determining that commodity's price. Prices fluctuate all the time based on supply and demand, but when supply and demand meet you reach an equilibrium price, which at that point does not explain anything to us about the value of the commodity at that point. So there must be something else, a more consistent, long-term basis for the price of that commodity, which is the labour put into the commodity itself.

[Anonymous No.12553160]

>>12552845
Value is entirely relative to the individual though. If you lived on a very small island, a boat would be vastly more valuable to you then some one that lived deep in the mainland. However, the more boats you have the less they are valuable you, this is not to say the man hours put in are worthless but the only value it holds for you maybe the ability to sell it on. The free market attempts to sum all the supply and demand information at any given time into a market price because that would be it's value to someone who doesn't need one. This in turn informs production whether more or less should be produced (the greater the demand, the higher the price, the higher the profit which leads to an increase in production until it attempts to balance out).

It's all well and good saying that someone has x value because of the man hours put into it but if not one is willing to purchase it at that price then it is meaningless. It's not only an irrelevance but it would misinform production so either too many or little would be produced (which would have negative repercussions). This is even assuming one can do that which with the complexity of the market this day is impossible (eg. how many hello kitty iphone xr cases in silicone should you make?) which is why people in the Soviet Union had to have 1 type of car, 1 type of wall paper, etc, etc. Capitalism isn't perfect but it's the most effective resource allocation tool we have are aware of.

[Anonymous No.12553343]

>>12552845
>The expression of the value of a commodity in gold — is its money-form or price.
I bet no one of these retarded marxists ever read Das Kapital

[Anonymous No.12553404]

>>12542919
>doesn't understand the economic calculation problem
Lol read this before you post brainlet