/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>49904053
Retardation

Go. Back.

risk. reward.

>>49904077
Nah he’s alright take the extreme stuff with a grain of salt they’re legitimately insane

The donkey out in the field expends more energy than anyone on this board, where's his compensation

But labour can never store value

>>49904053
Risk, complexity, identification of opportunities.

Marginal. Utility.

SAY IT WITH ME:
LABOR.
VALUE.

>>49904130
Unless that donkey is doing some socially necessary labour (at the rate said society does it optimally), his job is worth shitt.

>>49904053
I took a huge shit today. Took a lot of labour to pass it throw my tight asshole. When do I get money?

the market determines value. why are commies so dumb?

>>49904077
*Ingenuity

PRC will terraform and colonize Mars and Venus. White boys will be wiped out by the Stacy-Tyrone alliance.

>>49904215
I prefer Las Vegas. The epicenter of capitalism (and ill timed weddings).

>>49904115
Marx's labor theory of value has been entirely refuted.

Value is subjective.

Anyone who still pushes that argument is not an honest intellectual, they are an ideologue

>>49904264
It doesn't work that way, nigger.

>>49904363
Proof?

>>49904335
Reno and Silver City is nice too. Lots of booze and regret

>>49904053
Lifelong. NEET.

>>49904387
Let's say I, a capitalist, own a business that makes bottled water.

Two customers walk up. Once of them just got done drinking a gallon of water. The other hasn't had anything to drink in 3 days. First guy offers me $1 for the bottle of water. The thirsty guy offers me $10. According to marx's theory I have magically exploited an extra $9 from my workers by selling the water to the thirsty guy. Even tho it's the exact same product with the exact same labor I would have sold to the other guy for $1

Value. Is. Subjective

>>49905044
>according to marx's theory I have magically exploited an extra $9 from my workers by selling the water to the thirsty guy

You are equating value with money. According to Marx you sold at different prices something that holds the exact same value.

>>49904053
>'ate labor
>luv me value
Simple as.

>>49905095
>You are equating value with money.
it's the same

>>49905177
Not for Marx. If you want to refute his theory, you need to engage with the way he defined those terms. Your example is not only something Marx knew, he even expected it to happen:

"...The fact that products can be traded above or below their value (and hence that more labour can exchange for less labour) became a fundamental theoretical problem for classical political economy. That is, the classical political economists failed theoretically to reconcile the law of value with unequal exchange (the exchange of unequal values). For Marx, the exchange of non-equivalents was not an aberration in the exchange process at all, but instead the pivot of business competition among producers in capitalist society. Price-value differences for labour-products determined how much of the new surplus value produced by enterprises, potentially contained in an output of commodities, could be realized as profit by those enterprises..."

BTW I'm not a Marxist, but the amount of people who shit on his theories without understanding them is trully big.

>>49904098
I risked my life by typing this comment, where is my money?

>>49904053
My biggest gripe with Marx is that he essentially advocates for and essentially created Wage Slavery. I mean his entire thesis is you will work, you will own nothing, and you will be happy. At least in Capitalism there is pressure to escape from the wage cage but for Marx the Wage Slavery is essentially the end goal.

>>49904299
yes, exchange value. Marx agreed.

>>49905346
Are you saying communism is Wage Slavery?

>>49905226
Correct.
Marx is often misrepresented but his labor theory of value is absolute shit that does not withstand minimal criticism

>>49905411
The end goal of Communism is that everybody works. Everyone works for the sake of working. Work is the end goal. We abolish money and government and everyone works for the greater good of working more. Communism essentially invented wage slavery and is wage slavery.

>>49904053
so under marxist theory, 8 hours of labor by a german worker = 8 hours of labor by a somalian worker?

>>49905346
Well... yes and no. I mean, he didn't create wage slavery, that was already a thing after the second industrial revolution (or the first one, if you were brit).

He did said that work should still be a thing, under a socialist regime. However Marx wasn't shooting for socialism, who he saw just as a middle step towards communism (or late stage socialism). At that point he had some wacky ideas, but I think that he envisioned something like the fully automated space gay shit. Here are some relevant quotes of him (which come from "Grundrisse" a series of notes he never got to use because he died before finishing Des Kapital. They come from a section called "the fragment on machines):

"...Once adopted into the production process of capital, the means of labour passes through different metamorphoses, whose culmination is the… automatic system of machinery… set in motion by an automaton, a moving power that moves itself; this automaton consisting of numerous mechanical and intellectual organs, so that the workers themselves are cast merely as its conscious linkages.”

Rather, it is the machine which possesses skill and strength in place of the worker, is itself the virtuoso, with a soul of its own in the mechanical laws acting through it; and it consumes coal or oil just as the worker consumes food to keep up its perpetual motion.

Labour no longer appears so much to be included within the production process; rather, the human being comes to relate more as watchman and regulator to the production process itself… As soon as labour in the direct form has ceased to be the great well-spring of wealth, labour time ceases and must cease to be its measure.

Capitalism thus works towards its own dissolution as the form dominating production.

the general reduction of the necessary labour of society to a minimum, which corresponds to the artistic, scientific etc. development of the individuals in the time set free, and with the means created, for all of them.

There's no need to argue about any of this. Latin America is once again recycling back its Marxist hellspawns into power. We're going to get another real-world demonstration of why you're retarded. But I'm sure you fags will say it's not real communism when those countries crumble in a decade anyway.

>>49905517
Well yes, it's dogshit. Its dogshit for other reasons people never mention tho, some pretty obscure and complicated to explain (like the transformation problem). He died before finishing his magnus opus tho and Engels managed to pull a third book out of some notes he had (but Marx always had it planned to be four), so I'll give him that.

>>49905619
Yes but NEETs do not fit into this model you are still working like a good little wagie. There is no escape as you said you are just part of a greater machine. You are a slave a slave to work. Waging away. Until you die. Even your artistic and scientific pursuits are done merely to make the machine better. It is advanced wage slavery.

>>49905587
No. See, Marx coined the term "socially necessary labour time". The value of an object isn't calculated by the labour you put, it must first be labour put into something said society values, and it's not only calculated based on said labour, but it's waged against what an average worker, in a determined society can produce, with average machinery. So a German worker lives under certain society, with certain machinery, and the average german has a value for his product based on that, while the somalian lives in some other place, and hence, the value he produces is different.

"The simplest definition of socially necessary labour time is the amount of labour time performed by a worker of average skill and productivity, working with tools of the average productive potential, to produce a given commodity. This is an "average unit labour-cost", measured in working hours.

If the average productivity is that of a worker who produces a commodity in one hour, while a less skilled worker produces the same commodity in four hours, then in these four hours the less skilled worker will have only contributed one hour's worth of value in terms of socially necessary labour time. Each hour worked by the unskilled worker will only produce a quarter of the social value produced by the average worker."

>>49905681
I guess if you see it that way, it is. Someone needs to keep the machines going (though to be fair you could make a self contained system, but Marx didn't envision that, probably because he jlived in the 1800s). On the other hand, Marx rarely spoke how communism should work (with just a few mentions in the Manifiesto, Des Kapital, and Critique of the Gotha program), so I'm not sure if he would take a "self contained system of robots doing shit" as a form of communism.

>>49905781
Isn't that just free market economics?

>>49905226
>you need to engage with the way he defined those terms
Why would anybody do that when critical examination of his presuppositions exposes assumptions which are false? The concept of value presupposes an evaluating organism with its own needs, wants, points of view, etc. The realization of the value of a thing only ever occurs when there is an exchange made in the real world between two subjects. What you or I believe (or want) the value of a thing to be is a conceptual abstraction which may or may not correspond to any real-world exchange of value. You want people to accept as true propositions of Marx which are not actually true and then proceed from there.

>>49905554
thats current capitalism

>>49905831
Well, in a sense yes. Marx lived in the 1800s, and he was trying to understand what free markets where (same as Ricardo and Adam Smith, who had their own versions of the theory of value), but he fucked it up because he didn't took into account marginal utility. I'll say he was close, but there is more to value than just the work you put into it. A specially big flaw he made was that he considered "inorganic/death capital" (machines) as giving zero value to an object, and only living or organic capital (humans) the ones capable of producing surplues value. We now know that's not the case.

>>49905825
The issue is that is all well and good but there is nothing beyond Communism. It's just working. Like the revolution happens and the workers cease the means and then... everyone just go back to work. You work and then you die. There is no fulfillment. For some sure there might be but those people are fulfilled in any society they just work. This is actually part of the issue with why most communist societies and labor unions have efficiency issues. There is nothing to actually make people want to do more then the bare minimum.

>>49905885
But Marx agreed. That'ss why he invented the term "socially necessary labour of time". what do you think the term "socially" means there? He was arguing that value comes from an average working producing shit said society deems worthy of producing, so in a sense yes, value is determined by that society.

For Marx that wasn't subjective tho, because what societies wanted was ultimately determined by the underlying supra-structure that formed it and the class forces, all following an almost "prophetic" path (historical materialism). So a society may decide socially what is worth shit, but that society decides that because historical materialism made them decide that.

>>49905988
For Marx, each stage in the historical materialist route had an internal contradiction that pushed for the next stage. Primitive communism had it (aka cavemen), slavery had it, feudalism had it, capitalism had it, socialism had it... and MAYBE communism has it.

Under marxism, there is no post-communism, true. But Historical materialism leaves open the route for communism to have some internal contradiction that may push it further to some other society. What comes after no ones knows tho, because neither Marx nor any other marxist has posited any theory for that.

>>49904053
Demand drives value not labour.

communism doesn't wor-

>>49906100
China isn't communist anymore redditurd, that's the reason it didn't fall apart like Soviet Union.

>my labor has value because... IT JUST DOES OKAY!!

>>49904335
Exactly. Sodom and Gomorrah in a disgusting desert. Name something more American.

>>49906144
> inb4 his labour gets automated and replaced by technology Nooooooooooo!!!!!!
Coomunism is such a retarded and regressive ideology lmao

>>49906123
They are not communist but they are marxists tho.

>>49904363
>Marx's labor theory of value has been entirely refuted.
Only in your dreams, brainlet.

>>49906100
Wait until you learn that China only had the greatest growth in history when it adopted unrestricted and unregulated capitalism. Im sure by now you know they have children working in factories and youve seen all of the housing market players coupled with the webm unregulated death trap factories.

>>49906144
Marx would say it doesn't.

>>49906223
They aren't lmao, they are just pragmatic authoritarians, they have always been like this, they have a huge history, societies with such deep and complex culture assimilate contrasting values easily, they clearly aren't "capitalists" either.

>>49906236
COPE, it not only got refuted but is literally dead for good.

Economists are niggers who believe they are scientists but get lost in the math and start rambling like idiots. The discussion about value isn't even about the different types of values ascribed to an object, but which one is the "correct one" which is absolutely retarded to believe this can be found empirically lmao. Even the Austrians who just say its all relative duuude don't understand how that doesn't justify their system as they are obviously making a value judgment on how society should be organized. Economy is good at describing and organizing how societies organize work and needs, any judgement about how this should be done goes obviously way beyond the midwit economists who jerk themselves because they think they prove shit because they use calculus!

For example >>49905044 this situation shows just how stupid economists are. Obviously someone who is in desperate need of water will personally value it more that someone who doesn't need it, now should a society allow someone who has a surplus of water basically exploit someone in need? Well even the fucking bible argues it is a sin and most people nowadays would try to cancel someone who does that because that type of shit is seen as morally wrong in most societies I can think of.
However some people might argue that property and accumulation cannot be allowed just in certain situations because whatever so the discussion is quite more complicated than I'm willing to pay more. You can calculate value using whatever retarded formula you like this doesn't change the problem. If we don't allow as a society certain behaviors why suddenly with economics is all "NOO LOOK AT MY RIGOROUS MATH DEFINITION WE USE DERIVATIVES AND SHIT SO IT MUST BE TRUE".

>>49904387
>>49906236
It has been refuted, best by Karl Popper. If you have two theories, the one with better predictive value is more accurate.
As flawed as economics is, no one would deny its more useful at predicting the future than Marxist ideology. Billion dollar hedge funds don’t hire Marxists to help them know what the future, they do hire economists. That’s not due to politics, it’s due to accuracy of models.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X8Xfl0JdTQ&vl=en

>>49906100
It sucks to live in China, so yes it doesn't work for anyone but their party elite

>>49906334
Maybe they are lying (which is possible) but their doctrine seems to be marxist. They still believe in some form of historical materialism (in china case its a variation of Lenin's dialectical materialism) and hold that capitalism is just a stage that goes before socialism so they first need to achieve some form of "final stage capitalism" before moving on with socialism.

Lenin had a similar dilemma back when the USSR arose in the 1918. He knew Marx theories were designed for wester countries at the peak of the capitalist industrial revolution, but Russia was a feudal shithole. His solution was to do a "two for one" sort of deal and created the two stage theory based on some obscure letters Marx wrote concerning Russia. In this theory, you could speedrun through capitalism while planting the seeds for socialism (this materialized in the New Economic Policy which came after the sort period 1918-1919 of war communism. Under the NEP farmers still could do capitalist trades but they slowly started implementing socialist shit until Stalin went full socialism in 1924). Xi thinks this was a mistake: either you do it right or you dont, hence they first need to become fully capitalists before going fully socialists, the way Marx intended.

>>49906360
>>49906414
Not an argument. LToV is overwhelmingly supported by empirical evidence.

>>49906389
tl;dr

>>49906469
This guy has actually read Marx.

>>49906543
>LToV is overwhelmingly supported by empirical evidence.
What are you talking about? Give me just one respected predictive equation that uses it.

>>49906123
But they are falling apart! https://www.youtube.com/c/ADVChina/videos Sosialism is communism is marxism is SLAVERY( with pretty words)!

Nigger. Kike.

>>49906301
I’ve pointed this out so many times but Marxism’s a cult man, no amount of data will change there views. Hence why it’s so dangerous.

To bad to because I think Marx’s views on the alienation of labour actually has value and should be taught.

>>49906469
They will never go full socialist, the moment they do that, they will turn into the agrarian shithole they used to be, Everything they have today is result of Deng's opening up, one step towards maoism and it will be 1960s again.

>>49904264
Kek, based LOGpusher

>>49905044
Value is two fold. What this retarded example fails to comprehend is that the objective utility of the water (it's use value) is completely different than it's speculative value which would be it's exchange value. Marx was focused on the creation of utility by laborers in the capitalist system and specifically focused on this relationship.

Lolbertarian economists think they have some big gotcha with this example but really all it shows is you don't understand the LTV. When Marx says labor creates everything if value he literally everything in society that is of utility. Which is true. Everything in society that has utility has to pass through labor to be transformed into something of utility par natural resources themselves which Marx also expands on.

>>49905346
Retarded not what he said at all. The point is that you literally own everything.

>>49906640
LToV says the exchange-value of a commodity is the average labor time needed to reproduce its use-value. This means the market value of a commodity will tend to be purely a function of its labor content. Which is exactly what the empirical evidence demonstrates:

http://paulcockshott.co.uk/publication-archive/Talks/politicaleconomy/Brazillecture2.pdf

>Marxx

>>49906640
Marx did predict some major shit. This is called the "tendency of the profit rate to fall". Basically Marx argued that capitalism had a natural tendency of producing less and less surplus value over time, across all markets.

This is a quite controversial prediction among marxists, who claim is real, and even some mainstream economists have come to that same realization. On the other hand, some argue its not true. So far I think there is no consensus if its true or not.

"The tendency of the rate of profit to fall (TRPF) is a theory in the crisis theory of political economy, according to which the rate of profit—the ratio of the profit to the amount of invested capital—decreases over time. This hypothesis gained additional prominence from its discussion by Karl Marx in Chapter 13 of Capital, Volume III,[1] but economists as diverse as Adam Smith,[2] John Stuart Mill,[3] David Ricardo[4] and Stanley Jevons[5] referred explicitly to the TRPF as an empirical phenomenon that demanded further theoretical explanation, although they differed on the reasons why the TRPF should necessarily occur.[6]

Geoffrey Hodgson stated that the theory of the TRPF "has been regarded, by most Marxists, as the backbone of revolutionary Marxism. According to this view, its refutation or removal would lead to reformism in theory and practice".[7] Stephen Cullenberg stated that the TRPF "remains one of the most important and highly debated issues of all of economics" because it raises "the fundamental question of whether, as capitalism grows, this very process of growth will undermine its conditions of existence and thereby engender periodic or secular crises."[8]

Marx regarded the TRPF as proof that capitalist production could not be an everlasting form of production since in the end the profit principle itself would suffer a breakdown.[9]"

>>49904264
It takes zero labor time to reproduce the use-value of your product, so the LTV says it is worth zero.

>>49906814
Chemicals are of great utility, they are produced in almost completely automated factories. Labour isn't involved in any stage of production.

Again, demand drives value, demand decides what is of utility.

>>49906389
>Well even the fucking bible argues it is a sin
Jacob is considered the good guy for scamming Esau

>>49906926
labor is being done by the machines. I work with high explosives and are centrifuges are required to spin gun powder. Do you think that they just fell out of the sky? No, again, labor had to be input into society in order to achieve this automation. This is obvious to anyone who has read the labor theory of value yet for some reason you nerds in your myopic dash to refute the theory miss this simple understanding. It took labor to create the machines in the first place which, again, is perfectly in line with marx.

>>49906543
>>49906851
No such "empirical evidence" exists, LTV isn't used anywhere in the world, shut up. Nobody pays based on your "labour" lmao.

>>49905554
maybe not wrong philosophically. but functionally, same bullshit as capitalism. unless you are one of the wealthy (or political class under communism)
I'm honestly starting to lean towards the idea that human systems are fallible and lead to the the worst group of outcomes no matter what.

>>49906974
Do you think the robotic machinery just spontaneously generated because of demand?

>>49906996
What are you talking about nigger

>>49906994
Imagine being this retarded.

>>49906994
Professor cockshot has shows pretty conclusively that price points on average tend to be in relation to the utility of commodities.

https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2020/05/07/defending-the-labour-theory-of-value-again/

>>49907025
Meant to quote this nigger>>49906926 However usury is a mortal sin

>>49906996
Apparently so, lol

>>49905044
Don't taunt the animals

>>49905554
>Communism essentially invented wage slavery
Marx invented the concept of "wage slavery" as a description of the capitalist mode of production. Capitalism is wage slavery. Communism is defined as a hypothetical phase succeeding capitalism in which there are no States or Classes. So you have it exactly backwards.

>>49907088
notrealcapitalism.png

>>49905044
>>49907088
>t. literal retards

>>49906983
Automation has value because it's in demand, it is in demand because it increases efficiency and scalability, Labour got involved at some point for some time because demand exists.

Value is created by demand, simple as. No amount of circular semantics will change that. People don't get paid based on their "labour", it is a completely abstract term, there is no way to measure it.

>>49906700
>saved the thumbnail
You'll fit right in here m8

>>49906710
The only people better at self loathing then Jews are Faggs!

>>49906851
Interesting and well put response, I’ll have to dig into some of the papers. Still, what this proves is that corporations are stealing the profits of labour, not that capital doesn’t produce value. It still produces some, just not much. Also, this correlation does not hold up well against all industries.
So Marx is wrong in saying that ALL value is purely labour.

>>49907118
>>49907145
Seething poorfags are seething

>>49907154
Nah. Many people demand a cure for cancer. But such a thing doesnt exist. So their demand for it doesnt create shit, there is no value in wanting a non existent thing.

Value is only created if people demand some shit that someone created.

>>49906996
People made it because it was in demand, they got paid for it, and that pay was higher than that of a water coolie, because this work had more long term speculative value.

Again people get paid based on the demand of their work. It's demand and speculation (investment) that guides an economy.

>>49907193
Not seething at all. Just trying to have a real understanding of the economy so I can make my life and other peoples lives better.

>>49907205
Is there demand for a time machine so I could go back and buy stocks early?

>>49905554
Capitalism's end goal is to make money out supplying demand, it has nothing to do with "employment", it will use it if it is required obviously and will pay for it depending upon the demand and the money it generates from supplying it

>>49907253
Yes. I want one and many people want it. But just wanting it doesnt make that thing valuable. it first needs to be created. What gives value is both demand and the actual physical object created by someone.

>>49907232
That's what capitalism does since the demand is filled therefore making both parties lives better since they both freely agreed upon a predetermined exchange of goods or services
You have a faggoty poorfag mentality that screams out for govt to save you from being eternally impoverished due to your own ignorance that you parade around here like a ultranigger

>>49907154
Are you literally braindead? With out labor the machines cannot exist in the first place. Period.
You can have all the demand in the world but with out labor to transform these resources into something useful you just have a bunch of raw materials with no purpose. It's not a semantics game you retard it's objective fact. People value things for their utility. What that utility is is irrelevant to Marx in the labor theory of value and he even states so on the literal first fucking page of Capital.
I'm sorry you are unable to live with the fact that no one cares about marginal utility.


>There's no way to measure labour

Yes there is it's called time, kek. It's literally labor time.

>>49906851
>Evidence
>Handwaves a bunch of arguments with a single bullet point
>Ignores correlation =/= causation as an alleged professional academic
>Seems not to understand why higher capital to labor ratio industries have lower profit margins and assumes it's because of labor rather than the nature of high capital industries (highly competitive pricing, mass produced goods, industrial farming, etc.)

Suppose 1 pearl diver dives for 8 hours and finds only a small, imperfect pearl before going home.

Another pearl diver goes down for his first dive of the day, and in 5 minutes finds a massive pearl that's completely perfect. He then goes home.

Guess which pearl is worth more? You're retarded if you think it's a "lolbertarian" viewpoint among economists to know and understand this. At least Austrians dissected the economic calculation problem before never contributing anything important again; not only have Marxists contributed not a single thing of value (ironic, given the amount of mental "labor" spent in their self-devised hamster wheels) but they've done a huge disservice to retards who flunked out of Econ 101, by making them think that the inability to understand supply and demand curves doesnt have to prevent them from making economic commentary. But don't listen to me, you've already made up your mind. Keep on renting and don't change your mindset if you want to continue on your path to never making it.

>>49907189
>not that capital doesn’t produce value
LTV is about the exchange-value of a commodity, not value in some vague all-encompassing sense. For example, air is extremely valuable in that it is necessary to sustain human life. However, it has no exchange-value, which underlies the 'price' at which commodities trade hands. To have exchange-value, a commodity must have both use-value and labor-value, but the exactly quantity of its exchange-value (its price, more or less) depends only on its labor-value.

>>49907278
Well commie want food but never seem to produce it

>>49906914
I’m not saying Marxism is flat wrong, or completely useless. Just that it’s a inferior model to mainstream economics. A few wins over its 200 year history isn’t nearly as impressive as the constant use and predictive value of economic theory.

>>49907205
People demanded cure of diarrhoea for centuries eventually a person figured it out. Demand drives action, sooner or later depending upon factors such as discoveries.

>>49907193
You are trying, but failing, to conflate capitalism with free markets. Capitalism is an economic regime in which Capitalists are enabled to exist. And a Capitalist is simply a private owner of capital (PPE etc). These concepts have nothing to do with free markets.

>>49907302
Capitalism makes life worse for people by making them all stupid and ignorant animals of the highest caliber through the division of labor.

That's word for word Adam Smith.


Do you think that every single person can be rich under capitalism? Doesn't like kind of fly in the face of capitalism in the first place? Like if everyone makes it then no one makes it. Supply and demand.

I can tell you are around 13 years of age.

>>49907332
"The socialist principle, "He who does not work shall not eat", is already realized; the other socialist principle, "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor", is also already realized."

The State and Revolution, Chapter 5, Section 3, "The First Phase of Communist Society". Vladimir Lenin.

>>49907325
>>Suppose 1 pearl diver dives for 8 hours and finds only a small, imperfect pearl before going home.
>Another pearl diver goes down for his first dive of the day, and in 5 minutes finds a massive pearl that's completely perfect. He then goes home.
You're joking right? You can't be this fucking retarded, r-right?

>>49905226
you've gained no value quibbling the semantics of some retarded parasite's ramblings

>>49907325
Correlation no equaling causation only applies in certain cases, lol. The correlation does in fact seem to prove some things here, lol.

This really does rustle the jimmies of Marginal utility theorests, though.


I'm not going to re-argue the labor theory of value for you. A rebuttle to marginal utility has already been made in this thread so I will just tell you to seethe, cope, and dial8.

>>49907321
If capital is objects that people want then that existed before labor. In fact labor was created to harness capital.
Everybody wants stuff and nobody can just tell you what the value of something is, including labor, since it's utility is subjective. Kinda like the capital, subjective like everything else of value. Marginal utility wins again
gg no re

>>49905044
>Trading water and water
Nigger it's the same thing.
Try comparing useless office roasties to construction work.
Useless roast beef should be raising the kids because her job not only doesn't exist it provides no value.
Constructions a terrible job that needs to get done

>>49907339
It was an important theory back in the 1800s, but I fully agree it has been outshined by superior theories. Marxism had many flaws, which is why its simply not tenable in this day and age.

>>49907340
Demand drives action, but it doesnt create value. It just drives someone to create something of value.

>>49907393
And you are probably 14 nigger.
>You have to be at least 18 years old to post here.

>yfw Marx never even said "labor theory of value"

>In 1887, Paul Lafargue, who was Marx's son-in-law, was a candidate for a council seat in a Paris district that contained a zoo. Engels claimed that Paul had "one eighth or one twelfth nigger blood."
>In an April 1887 letter to Paul's wife, Engels wrote, "Being in his quality as a nigger, a degree nearer to the rest of the animal kingdom than the rest of us, he is undoubtedly the most appropriate representative of that district."

>>49907393
>>49907389
Nothing is going to save you commies from helicopter rides

>>49907321
Without demand no one would have cared about muh labour, and it's not muh labour, people build things, not because muh labour, but because it's in demand.

Labour is completely abstract term, people do get paid for what they do. There are things producing value today that were made by people who are dead, aren't we all stealing their value of "labour"?

People work because they see it as a valuable investment in exchange for money, and they get paid for it depending on the demand of their work.

>>49907477
well, he called it law of value, but its the same.

>>49907449
>If capital is objects that people want
Retard alert.

>>49905554
The end goal of capitalism is this but you think you have freedom

>>49907449
Value = utility or
Value = exchange depending on the relationship.

When you understand this division you will understand the labor theory of value. The subjectivity of the utility of the object is irrelevant to the fact that people objectively value things for their utility.

The hammer is valued for the utility that the hammer has not the marginal utility that it has to each individual hammer enthusiast.
I can't bleed this stone you're to braindead.

>>49907489
>Nothing is going to save you commies from helicopter rides

>>49907489
You've already outed yourself as an ignorant moron in this thread many times over.

>>49907327
>depends ONLY on its labor-value.
But that’s what I’m saying is wrong. Your example showed the exchange value depends on 95% of the labour-value, excluding some industries. Capital still played a small role in value. Also energy was 75% as explanatory as labour (page 15). Not sure of the implications of that but I found that interesting.

>>49904053
Value is subjective.

>>49907497
ok and so what? What do you think this proves? The fact you retards think this some how refutes marx is amazing. Value is subjective. Yes, good job, now let's move on.

>>49907393
You're missing the point completely, calling other people 13 year olds is above your pay grade. The question isn't whether everyone under capitalism is "rich" but whether the least well off are still better off on average than they would be under communism. Go read John Rawls' A Theory of Justice.

>>49907425
That anon was probably referencing a famous example of why ltv is retarded. You did realize that, r-right?

>>49907321
> time
There are people who work less hours than that of a water coolie and produced exponentially more value.

How can you guys be this naive ? Do you go out? Have you ever seen how things work in the real world?

>>49907577
Still fascinating and thought provoking response. I appreciate you sending that to me.

>>49907592
And I disagree that we are. But that is the point I was making because the idea that you can just "think your way out of poverty" is mind numbingly stupid to anyone who actually understands economics because capitalism is designed to keep the masses poorer over all than the elite plutocracy.

>>49907321
>dig a hole for 8 hours
>fill it again for next 8 hours

How much will you pay me?

>>49907592
>That anon was probably referencing a famous example
Wow, you are doubly retarded. It's a famous example of not understanding what the LTV says.

>>49907607
I literally work in a factory, but, yes, please tell me more about how labor time isn't the measure of labor inputs in society, lol.

>There are people who work less hours than that of a water coolie and produced exponentially more value.

Skitzo psycho babble

>>49907517
Define capital you dumb bitch
>>49907525
Things are worth what people pay for them
Simple as
>>49907563
Stay poor and mad
It's fucking delicious
>>49907546
>projection
I hope you drain your parents dry. They deserve it

>>49907625
Nothing of utility was created and therefore nothing of value was created.

Dumb

>>49907625
Production value and exchange value are not the same thing
>muh mud pies redux no 6 gorillion

>>49907669
>I hope you drain your parents dry. They deserve it

>>49907624
Its not, it was already proven that capitalism results in increae of wealth of absolute majority of people, measuring wealth in relation to "how much the other guy has" is retarded, because by that logic absolute poverty for everyone would be more desirable state than majority in lesser poverty with few rich. Sorry sweetie

>>49907625
/thread

>>49907677
But I just spent my time, which is measurement of labour

>>49907625
Gorrilion $ because it was le heckin more time and more "labour" than the guy who worked 8 hours and wrote a new software that is going to be used by multiple businesses to run their automatic digger robots, that will dig and fill 10 holes per hour.

>>49907686
You will never be a real man

>>49907717
its not tho. Marx didnt said that.

>>49907743
But OP did

>>49907688
>These cherry picked numbers that the world health organization chose a-priori to make the system look better than it actually is proves that capitalism is the better system

Yeah no one believes that you are poor only if you live on 1 dollar a day. Sorry.

>>49907717
As marx put it it measures "abstract" labor, or, not labor that is codified. If you are getting really into the nitty gritty here.

>>49904053
The goyim cannot organize labor. They can use their skeletal muscles in a push and pull motion that were built through pure unadulterated insect slop but without the organization piece of the puzzle they will live in dilapidated poverty. If there is no profit to organize labor then there will be no efficient organized labor. Communism is like a child trying to organize society with complete neglect to price signals.

>>49907731
>You will never be a real man

>>49907577
>Your example showed the exchange value depends on 95%
Yes, labor content doesn't 100% determine price, due to statistical noise, measurement issues, etc. What the residual 5% is *not* the result of ... is capital. The 5% is likely more the result of 'commodity fetishism' (like the art market etc).

I would compare it to the theory that stock prices reflect the present discount value of expected cash flows. It is correct normatively, but the residual froth is explained by irrational factors like hype that are not justified fundamentally.

>>49907743
Nobody cares what marx said, he is dead, nothing in real world works according to what he said or not. Get real.

>>49907743
Marx does say that abstract labor is measured in units of time in capital.

>>49907792
>Literally everything in the real world works exactly how he said

Kek

>>49907766
>If there is no profit to organize labor
Organizing labor is labor, dumbass. Managers are employees.

>>49907869
Managers are only one level up so they still have a chunk of labor to do. As you increase the levels the labor portion reduces and it becomes more heavily concentrated in capital allocation and deal making.

>>49907775
Go back commie

>>49907757
Why even mention WHO, or why would WHO even be proponent of capitalism when it is organization exclusively made to pay salon socialists that throw resources at nonsensical projects with no real world effect, like Africa.

Capitalism make everyone better of, commie block countries were in absolute stagnation and poverty with every public service going to shitter. Capitalism fixed that. Even fucking Chinaman is capitalistic. Feel free to show me proof that commie countries ever grew faster and people there could afford more in comparison to capitalistic countries (protip, you cant)

Sorry, but capitalism just already proved itself, socialism is less effective with high degree of corruption, it will never work.

>>49907940
>Go back commie

>>49907954

I mention it because most people who use the numbers to justify the existence of capitalism don't even realize that the numbers are cooked.

Capitalism over all makes people poorer. The more we work the more we make and the more products are held privately in the hands of an elite plutocracy. We're literally impoverishing ourselves through our hardwork, kek. it's a nonsensical anarchic system of production and needs to be done away with for a rational planned economic system.

We can debate what that will look like, but at the end of the day the anarchy of production of capital markets that only enriches a few we can do better than.

>Digging up the specter of the USSR

Pass.

>>49907794
only societally valuable labor tho.

>>49907438
Labor heavy industries that also don't have high capital investment are, in our era, luxury goods. Making top end watches, jewelry, very high end designer clothing, etc are all basically 100% labor time without any more capital investment than a sewing machine or jeweler's tools. Since we live in an era where almost everything we use and eat was mass produced, we ascribe special value to handmade things that had actual people involved making it from start to finish. As a result, these sectors are high labor and high price, in a way that Cockshott is assuming en masse is because the labor intrinsically provides more value that must be reflected in the final price (as opposed to capital machinery) when it's really just people being willing to pay for something that's allegedly handmade as a status symbol. Look at the success of Lush, for example, even when they're not really selling a quantitatively better cosmetic product than competitors.

I think it's easy to misunderstand exactly why these labor intensive industries coincide with commensurately higher price until you realize that it's because luxury goods follow LTV much more closely than any other type of good because of their very nature. However, the problem with LTV isn't that it can't explain *any* prices, it's that it can't effectively be used to predict *all* prices. Once you move from luxury goods with almost no capital input, the ability of LTV to predict what the price will be falls off a cliff. This is especially true of high capital luxury goods, like expensive cars. Anyway, I'm not trying to be rude since it seems like you're trying to do your research, but suffice to say the economy isn't simple enough to be described perfectly by a catch all theory. And these days, were descending into MMT hell where none of the old rules apply anyway.

>>49904053
Flavour

>>49908044
Sorry thats a lie, you are just dodging the question, again.

I ask you, give me an example of planned economy that allocated resources more effectively and results in increase of wealth of general population greater or at least the same as capitalistic system.

>muh cooked numbers
>USSR was not real communism

>>49905892
you mean current marxism

>>49907114
communism is impossible without the enforcement of the state

>>49906100
>china is real communism when it proves my point
>china is capitalism when it's bad

Bootlickers will be liquidated
You all know this is the truth as history shows time and again

>>49907927
Most CEOs are labor not capital. They are employees not majority owners.

>>49908044
>it's a nonsensical anarchic system of production and needs to be done away with for a rational planned economic system
>We can debate what that will look like
Yeah, the debating and answers will always come after you've torn things down and brutalized people, right? Pay no attention to the destruction involved and authoritarian system needed to prevent free production and private property. How about coming up with a better system that actually works first? Or better yet, try improving the current system selectively rather than tearing everything down without a clear idea of what you want.

>>49908243
Agreed. To be clear, communists are the ultimate bootlickers.

>>49906833
You don’t anything if everyone else also owns your belongings. It’s like having a girlfriend that everyone else gets to fuck.

>>49908299
Well he is marxist communist who dislikes anarchistic systems, its just a LARPer

>>49908174
Wrong, capitalism is impossible without the enforcement of the state.

>>49908124
It's not a lie at all kek.

Do you believe that people are only poor if they live on 1 dollar of wealth a day? Do you honestly believe that?

the USSR was real communism you fag. Unlike you loosers I can admit when I make shitty mistakes, kek. The USSR was a product of its time. That found itself in the middle of a multi-front war with an illiterate population that had barely any real means to produce any thing for themselves. They have to create society in the first place to be able to attempt to take control of it. They also came out of an oppresive feudal aristocracy and had never actually attempted to have a capitalist society prior to having a socialist one.

Now that it's nearly 100 years later we can look beyond that and use things like technology to help manage and plan societies productive outputs. USSR still did some amazing things inspite of its struggles like bringing a backwards peasant population into modern society and turning it into the largest productive machine in all of eastern Europe and the east generally eclipsed only by the US which had 200 years on it historically.

Times have changed. Move on.

>>49908343
How are you gonna redistribute then?

>>49908299
Only capitalists can be authoritarian.

>>49908044
I love posts like this because without the anon even realizing it, they completely reveal how short-sighted and dogmatic they are. It's almost to the point of parody but you can tell he seriously believes it.

>>49908381
lmao

>>49908343
Capitalism would privatize every role the state has you utter fool

>>49904387
Unironically but hilariously, >49904215 is the proof of this.

>>49908369
Socialism has nothing to do with "redistribution". You're thinking of welfare capitalism.

>>49908299
Cope seethe dial8

I can tell my string of replies has made you quite buthurt.

>>49908418
Well you're going to have to do something about the people who own capital, aren't you? And their factories/property.

>>49908409
Nonsensical statement. Warren Buffet would not be a rich owner of capital without state-imposed property rights laws.

>>49908418
they know this but they need the narrative to exist for their ideology to remain intact.

>>49908044
Capitalism raised the standard of living so high that now commies in America can be fat. All because of the abundance Capitalism provides
You deserve communism and I hope you find your way to q commie shithole to die facing the wall as nature intended

>>49908453
>Well you're going to have to do something about the people who own capital, aren't you?
Yes, and it involves reducing the size of the state and its reach into economic affairs. Namely, by repealing laws protecting capital property.

>>49908362
>The USSR was a product of its time. That "found itself" in the middle of a multi-front war

Without exception, the two subjects every communist has failed are history and economics.

>>49904053
A loser and a begger. Learn the history on him dumbass and you'll stop following his ideas.

>>49908458
He would simply hire thugs instead of the state doing it for him with taxpayer funded thugs like the police.
Grow up kiddo

>>49908519
>hire thugs
How would he do that without all his riches?

Value of Labor is true, but only for the most cost effective way of manufacturing the good in question.

>>49908362
It is a lie and massive cope

USSR made a shitty mistake, send third of the world in time by 40 years and killed millions, not even for communist ideas, just to keep the nepotism of communist elites going.

Not to mention they fucking destroyed societies that were completely functiong before. It was full of fucking corruption and some retarded westoid is not gonna try to school me on shit I experienced first hand.

People did not have fucking toilet paper you know, a toilet paper.

>try to plan toilet paper production
>multiple amount of people with amount of paper needed to wipe multiplied by how many times people take a shit per day on average
>fail

You cant plan shit, you cant even understand how basic shit around you works, I am not giving you a smallest chance of every sticking yout head out of the hole.

>>49908550
>whataboutism
I accept your concession

>>49907044
>shows that price points on average tend to be in relation to the utility of commodities.
You literally did not use the word value in this sentence once and you're adamant it defends the labour theory of value

>>49908437
I jumped into the thread and saw the typical commie retardation, hadn't read the rest of your replies. And I admit, seeing that stupidity posted yet again did make me mad. But now I'm not and I'll go play Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Shredder's Revenge (yet another amazing fruit of capitalism), and you will still be retarded.

>>49908495
But who will defeat their mercenary army after that?

>>49908579
What? Buffett can't just "hire" thugs in the imagined scenario because there are no property laws. The thugs can kill him and take any available riches for themselves. Of course, most of Buffett's "riches" are tied up in equities and other legal constructs that have no meaning in a post-State world.

>>49908565
Kulaks literally did deserve it though and landlords deserve it too. You can't change my mind.

This is why I refuse to get into it with some poltard about the USSR because you are just a fag and not actually interested in what modern communists think or understanding the USSR what so ever. You just want to demonize it to support your cuck ideology, lol.

>You cant plan shit, you cant even understand how basic shit around you works, I am not giving you a smallest chance of every sticking yout head out of the hole.

This is exactly why I don't support centralized planning, lol.

You're a cuck face it.

>>49908630
>mercenary army
Requires money or wealth of some kind.

>>49904053
based and brave desu

>Kulaks literally did deserve it though and landlords deserve it too. You can't change my mind.
>This is why I refuse to get into it with some poltard about the USSR because you are just a fag and not actually interested in what modern communists think or understanding the USSR what so ever. You just want to demonize it to support your cuck ideology, lol.
>>You cant plan shit, you cant even understand how basic shit around you works, I am not giving you a smallest chance of every sticking yout head out of the hole.
>This is exactly why I don't support centralized planning, lol.
>You're a cuck face it.

>>49908721
I thought the thesis was that commies love work too much? Now it's the opposite?

>>49908683
>be a small farmer
>wtf you deserve the Uranium mines

Yeah sure only one who deserves it is you faggot

>this is why I dont support centralized planning
So the way how to make communism work somehow is to sprinke it with a bit of capitalism, that decentralized anarchistic system lmao

>>49908721
So yeah, production planning could have been much better off it was decentralized. This kind of makes intuitive sense because the workers are the ones that actually know what is needed in the first place as they are the ones who actually interact with the workplaces.

Coupled with technological development; i unironically think that blockchain technology could be adapted in some type of planned economic system and it would be quite useful.

You could use a blockchain to keep track of what is consumed when in the economy and signal to the productive facilities to begin production and how much.

>>49908827
>Capitalism is anything decentralized

Literal sub 80 IQ

>>49908787
>commies love work
>instead of working more or smarter I should go steal someone elses stuff

>>49908827
Capitalism is central planning. Anti-capitalism = decentralized property relations.

>>49908661
>reeeeeeeeeeeeeee
>muh goalposts!!!!!

>>49908885
>instead of working more or smarter I should go steal someone elses stuff
Perfect description of capitalism.

>>49908787
No the love the ideal of other slaves having to work way more then they do!

>>49908838
>Blockchain
Lol.
Lmao even

>>49908888
Are you drunk?

>>49908886
And who is that central in capitalism that plans it all?

>>49908921
Sounds exactly like proponents of capitalism.

>>49908916
And how is that stealing in capitalism functiong, explain

>>49908950
Mother nature and Father time?

>>49908950
You retards should really read picrel

>>49908987
only acceptable answer

>>49909006
>one of thousands of companies doing something means it is centralized

>>49908950
The capital class - i.e., the owners of the world's productive infrastructure. They own and control all states. Say hi to them in Davos.

>>49909031
Walmart is literally larger than many countries on the planet and yes they do basically do centralized planing in their ranks, lol. I mean that's capitalism right? 1 CEO or a group of directors controlling thousands of individuals.

>>49908972
Come again?

>>49909074

>>49909061
Yes thats decentralized, meaning there is not one entity doing that stuff, centralization has nothing to do with size, by that logic you coul say BTC is centralized because it has largest market cap lmao

>>49909074
How is capitalism stealing? Who is stealing from who and how?

>>49909136
Major sectors of the economy in the capitalist west are dominated by 1 to 5 incestuous corporate entities, who share board members who all belong to the same elite social circles. The Western economy is centrally planned to a horrific degree. Socialism is in contrast is decentralized.

>>49909161
He won't argue in good faith. He knows he's lost and is spinning plates to keep his position seemingly tenable in his own mind

>>49909224
>socialism is decentralized
>but it required big government to do the redistribution
>so instead 5 companies we now have 1 with absolute power

>>49909161
An economic regime is "capitalist" when state action specifically enables capital to be owned by entities other than the persons who make it - and make it work - through their labor. Capitalists steal from anyone contributing to the labor content of a commodity for sale.

>>49909328
>but it required big government to do the redistribution
Bzzzt! That's welfare capitalism. Try again.

>>49906301
China grew at a much faster rate under MAO. You can literally google the gdp growth. Under Mao, you gad years with 20%.

>>49906814
Nobody critiques Marx's assertion that labor creates that value. the bullshit comes when you take it the next step are try to argue that profit therefore is exploitation of the workers. its not.

Who gives a shit what "labour theory of value" says? Seriously. We can set prices to whatever we want, whenever we want, to whomever we want for whatever we want. That's literally what the globalists are attempting to do with their "CBDC".

>>49909161
Capitalism takes what was common property and privatizes it and then tells people they need to pay for usary, lol. See the enclosures act.

>>49908930
blockchain is not bitcoin

>>49909455
You've lost. It's oger

>>49909328
>Still thinking socialism is redistrbuting shit,

Ok grandpa time for bed.

>>49909529
>the bullshit comes when you take it the next step are try to argue that profit therefore is exploitation of the workers. its not.
'Profit' that accrues to owners rather than workers is indeed 'exploitation'. The price of a commodity is a function of its exchange-value, which is wholly determined by its labor content.

>>49909655
>muh digital internet assets
Thanks for playing

>>49909662
There is no need for "redistribution" when the "distribution" is dictated by the state, as it is under capitalism.

>>49909688
Redistribution is literally part of all production. Take X and distribute it to Y.

>>49909693
Then what determines the value of the labor and what do you pay people with if not capital?

>>49909696
blockchain isn't crypto you retarded nigger. Jesus, what are you technologically illiterate?

>>49909727
That's just called distribution, lol. "redistribution" implies re allocating something that has already been distributed, lol.

>>49909721
Customers order things companies send them for an agreed upon amount of capital. The state has no role stupid

>>49909733
>reeeeeeeeeeeeeee
>not my internet assets

>>49909728
>What determines the value of the labor.

Whatever people are willing to pay for it.
The point is that I make something of utility and I am not paid what it is worth. I am paid under its value and that is where the exploitation comes from because I am working as hard as the value of X for less than X so that the capitalist can pocket the remainder for profit.

>>49909783
ITT: Sub 80 IQ boom doesn't understand technology.

>>49909761
"Companies" are legal constructs, smoothbrain.

>>49909795
>Whatever people are willing to pay for it.
So not exploitation but agreement of terms which is literally yhe opposite of exploitation

>>49909825
So is labor according to your theory it's merely a social construct
Checkmate

>>49909752
yes, all products get allocated and reallocated all the time, it's called a supply chain.

>>49909841
Whether you call it "exploitation" or "agreement" depends on the perceptive and the conditions.

>>49909896
So you agree to be exploited?
Sounds fair to me

>>49909915
I mean, to a capitalist it's "voluntary agreement" to a starving person it's "exploitation".

>>49909942
Don't hire starving people. They are starving because they deserve to starve the last thing you wanna do is hire a worthless commie cuck who can't even feed themselves
Let them die of starvation like the rest of the commies

>>49909841
People can agree to all kinds of things and get ripped off. That's how it works, kek. Just cause you agree to something doesn't mean it isn't not exploitation.
This is why reading capital is so important because marx explains this relationship in a way that makes sense:
We exchange goods when they are of equal value so the labor of X must be equal to the value imbued in a commodity.

Let's say you own a bicycle shop and you need to build bikes.
X amount of labor is required to build a bike worth X. No exploitation has happened here because the value of the labor is equal to the value of the utility in the commodity that has been produced. in this case a bike.
Now let's so you heir some one to do this for you.

Anyone knows on this board as well as I do that you cannot just magic value out of thin air in this economy. At least not with out consequences.
Now you are entering into an exploitative relationship because in order to profit you have to pay a wagie LESS than the value of there labor which is X to make something that is worth X yet they receive less than X for their labor that is worth X which takes shape in the form of sed commodity. A bicycle.

>>49909728
>Then what determines the value of the labor
What do you mean by that? Commodities are things with exchange-value. Having exchange-value means having both use-value and labor-value. The use-value of a commodity is a measure of its usefulness. The labor-value of a commodity is a measure of the average labor time needed to produce it. LTV says the exchange-value of a commodity is just its labor-value.

>>49909974
>Let them die of starvation like the rest of the commies
why? and why does anyone get to exploit starving people? Do you deserve to starve?

>>49910020
They are just bitter and jaded anon and upset that we are, infact, right.

>>49909982
Yes if you agree to terms that's a contract. Breeching that contract is not exploitation its merely breech of contract
You've never fed yourself or had a job have you lady?

>>49909859
Labor is any activity that enhances exchange-value.

>>49910065
I literally make the bullets you shoot on a daily basis. Try again cuck.

If you are so deluded you think this relationship is fine because "yeah it's exploitation but who cares they agreed to it" is ok you are fooling yourself. Society can't sustain on that reasoning, kek.

You have to exploit your labor to survive in a capitalist system for better or worse.

>>49910020
>exploit starving people?
So if I hire them its exploitation of their labor, and if I don't hire them I'm exploiting starving people?
This is why you commies always starve. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Literally always the victim, regardless of the situation

Flawless

Maybe you niggers would have more money if instead of discussing communism you discussed capitalism.

>>49910065
The terms of that contract and the Conditions under which they were created determines everything. Contract in of itself means nothing.

>>49910105
You don't know shit about loading ammo nigger

>>49910130
Those terms are called a contractual agreement that outlines the terms agreed upon

>>49910110
Why are there starving people to begin with? and why do they need to be hired by someone in order not to starve? Like, why not just not have starving people and have guaranteed work?

>>49910135
Cute setup bet you've killed a lot of empty beer cans with that

>>49910160
> the Conditions under which they were created determines everything

>>49910178
They are starving of their own fault not mine. Why is it that you can't operate in q free exchange without being exploited and if I dint trade with you or hired you I'm also exploiting you?
Is their any situation in which you are not veing oppressed or exploited?

>>49910160
>contractual agreement
Doesn't exist unless you are a filthy Statist.

>>49910198
Which is called a contractual agreement

>>49910226
Why do you hide behind the State and its violent "property"-defining apparatus?

>>49910229
No. Contractual agreements existed before the state idiot

>>49910226
>They are starving of their own fault not mine.
How do you know?
>Why is it that you can't operate in q free exchange without being exploited and if I dint trade with you or hired you I'm also exploiting you?
Exploitation is an intrinsic property of today's master-slave society. That's why.
>Is their any situation in which you are not veing oppressed or exploited?
Yes, in non master-slave societies.

>>49904053
>dug a massive hole in my lawn using a teaspoon
when do I get the money

>>49910298
Find someone who needs to dig a hole in their lawn with a teaspoon.

>>49905948
>Well, in a sense yes.
Then why should we give a fuck

>>49910293
So no matter what you are being oppressed regardless of what I do?
I guess I'll keep refraining from hiring commies and I'll exploit them by not doing any business whatsoever with them
I'm free to do that. I'm free to exploit you by ignoring your pleas for jobs, goods, and services that you claim are exploiting you
Don't like it? Start your own economy

>>49910273
Wrong. Contracts can't exist without a State. You can shake hands with your neighbor about where his land ends, but without a State nothing is stopping him from seizing your land if he happens to have more firepower.

>>49910312
I did a lot of hard labour - I have therefore created value, no?

>>49910326
You're making my point. Capitalism is wage slavery and you're part of the problem.

>>49910312
>>49910346
someone MUST be willing to buy the hole in MY yard since I put a lot of labour into creating it - that's how it works right?
Have Marx lied to me?

>>49910330
>caveman offers soft shiny rock for another cavemans dull hard rock
>no state exists since its caveman times
Gee that wasn't hard at all

>>49910312
thats capitalism, buddy

>>49910346
Well, if you find it valuable (maybe a good work out) then yes you did.

>>49910298
What money? According to LTV, engaging in an activity that results in zero use-value should result in a something with zero exchange-value (aka, it's not even a commodity).

>>49904053
Still don't understand the concept of labour as an entity. What the fuck is he trying to explain here? That people work and get paid? That shit is common sense.

>>49910135
Lmfao, ok, if you say so. I work for Remington, kek. But I don't have to prove anything to retarded polops, but, if you are pressing your own ammo ngl that is pretty chad.

>>49910367
So you can't exist without being oppressed? Sounds like a personal problem
Start your own economy nigger

>>49910397
but a hole in a yard has use value
you can fill it with water and take a dip

>>49910377
>capitalism is whenever commerce or any economic activity happens
lmao

>>49910312
refuted multiple times in the thread nigger READ THE FUCKING THREAD

>>49910372
I don't think that's what Marx said. Valuable does not mean valuable for everyone.

>>49909795
>cost of getting product to the shelf
>cost of workspace for labor
>cost of (probably renting) machinery or equipment to make product
>property taxes
>income taxes
>payroll taxes
>cost of raw inputs

Yes, I too wonder why the worker isn't paid the full price of the product on the shelf. Truly it must be exploitation. I'm not even bringing up the fact that the individual worker likely doesn't have the knowledge, skills, or contacts to actually organize the aforementioned production costs. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be paid more if the company is doing well, but assuming that the worth of the product is what should determine the exact non exploitative wage is childish.

>>49910440
Yes
:gigachad:

>>49910418
>Start your own economy nigger
I can't, the capitalists are actively oppressing me with their guns.

>>49910473
Good
Don't like it? Build your own guns

>>49910444
refuted what? I didn't make any claims.

>>49910437
If your glorious, labor-intensive hole does indeed have such use-value, then you have enhanced the exchange-value of your property by digging it. The only real proof is a higher sales price.

>>49910479
> Build your own guns
I can't, the capitalists are actively preventing me from doing that.

>>49904146
and value can never store labour

>>49910524
Good.
Stave to death

>>49910540
>Stave to death
I don't want to.

>>49910463
So before capitalism, economic activity didn't exist?

I despise communists. I would kill every single one if I had the opportunity. Internationalist Jew rats that would destroy all the valuable things in the world for their materialist ideology. But this thread has proved without a doubt in my mind that they are ever so slightly superior to Libertarians. If lolspergs would actually read communist literature and study the ideology they might be able to critique it without resorting to the kind of strawmen you might see pushed by boomers on Fox Business Network.

>>49910534
If labor adds to value then the value is literally stored

>>49910568
Economic activity, freely exchanged, is capitalism. No state required

>>49910575
>Literally builds a strawman to make his point
Thanks for playing

>>49910619
Nothing I said was a strawman. This thread is literally nothing but lolspergs who either do not know what Marx’s LToV actually entails, such as this anon >>49907625, and people who just refuse to engage with it, and deliberately perpetuate a false definition of it, such as this retard >>49907792. There was no strawman.

>>49910596
>Economic activity, freely exchanged, is capitalism.
Wrong. Capitalism is a state-created legal structure that assigns "ownership" rights to idle third parties (usually unemployed hipsters living in Brooklyn) over the economic value produced by hard-working employees of all kinds and collars.

>>49910730
Capital can exist without a state
>>49910720
Read the thread stupid

>>49910848
>Capital can exist without a state
Capital in the sense of "those durable produced goods that are in turn used as productive inputs for further production of goods and services" can of course exist without a state. What can't exist without a state are private capital property rights.

>>49910944
So people can freely exchange that capital that existed without a state?
Welcome to capitalism 101....
Now get out

>>49904053
Jewish. Man.

>>49910991
>freely exchange
You mean friends trading with friends?
Are you even aware that the real economy includes many people who don't trust each other?
Without a State, the physically strong will simply rob the physically weak. All the paperwork the capitalists provide "proving" they are actually rich would amount to nothing.
Bill Gates would get his glasses smashed.
Warren Buffet would be snapped in two like an elderly twig.
Mark Zuckerberg would be given a swirly in his own metaverse.
Without the state, capitalism cannot exist.

>>49910848
I did

>>49911185
You said it yourself here >>49910944. Capital and its exchange can exist without the state. As you pointed out
You lost its over

>>49911313
>You said it yourself here >>49910944 (You). Capital and its exchange can exist without the state.
False. Try again, brainlet.

>>49911378
None of your fancy human rights exist without a state either you stupid commie subhuman. Its a moot point. No one here wants an authoritarian nanny state. Governments are inevitable and older than civilization.

>>49904053
land

>>49911378
>Capital in the sense of "those durable produced goods that are in turn used as productive inputs for further production of goods and services" can of course exist without a state
>can of course exist without a state
You defended capitalism
It's oger

>>49911571
>your fancy human rights
Project much troon? Enjoy capitalism in the form of the 'authoritarian nanny state' that currently exists, faggot.
So-called "rights" are legal constructs.
Anyone pretending to be anti-state should be anti-rights (specifically anti private capital property rights).

>>49911593

>>49911683
You defended both capitals existence and free trade as I pointed out >>49911593
You lost. Everyone here knows it

>>49911716
You lost. Try again in another thread champ

>>49911721
>You defended both capitals existence and free trade
Are you just pretending to be retarded?

>>49910944
>Capital in the sense of "those durable produced goods that are in turn used as productive inputs for further production of goods and services" can of course exist without a state
Above you mentioned exactly my point and consneeded defeat. I accept your consneeshon anon
>>49911767

>>49911811
>Above you mentioned exactly my point
No, I gave the definition of 'capital'.

>>49911844
That exists without a state.... this is capitalism. The existence of capital without a state is capital
Thanks for becoming a capitalist in one thread. Keep up the good work

>>49911904
>That exists without a state.... this is capitalism.
What have you been smoking? Capital has existed as long as humans have existed. Capital is just the productive infrastructure of the economy. "Capitalism" is state-sanctioned private ownership of such capital by corporations and wealthy elites.

>>49912029
Nope. Capitalism is the existence of capital without the state
You have lost. As commies always do

>>49912063
>Capitalism is the existence of capital without the state
So everyone who is currently a capitalist is, in your twisted view, not a capitalist?

>>49911683
The case against low IQ commies such as your self is your own self evident stupidity. Nowhere did I mention being against private rights or against the existence of a government. Nor did I mention any support for current world order. You are a retarded ideologue.Of course I am against banning capital and private property. I want to be able to acquire resources to put my own offspring and future bloodline at an advantage. Why the FUCK would I want to be equal to other people? I want to have a better life. Yet here comes this commie nigger who wants me to own nothing and be happy because some subhuman feels bad about private prosperity.
You want to blame everything on big bad capitalism instead of isolating variables BECAUSE you are an ideologue. The modern economy is a mix of markets, government, monetary system, and capital. Its why its so complex and modern economists are having difficulty dealing with it. but noo here comes this low IQ dysgenic commie subhuman who has it all figured out because of video essays and a 200 year old drunkard who never worked a day in his life says so. fuck off faggot.

>>49912114
The existence of capital, without the existence of the state, is capitalism
Maybe you can try again in another thread champ

>>49912115

>>49912163
>capitalism is when humans exist

>>49912164
>triggered
>no rebuttal
>reaction images instead of refutation
You lost. It's great you are now advocating capitalism by recognizing the existence of capital without the state apparatus. Keep it up

>>49912188
Without humans, capital wouldn't exist. We value things and that is called capital
Thanks for playing

>>49912195
So you are 8HVVGTwP, right?

>>49912214
Would it be unfair to accuse you of conflating capital with capitalism?

>>49912227
>invisible enemies
Most Leftists are on medication for mental instability

>>49912262
I'll take that as a yes.

>>49912259
Capital can exist without capitalism. Socialists use capital too, under the direction. And ownership of the state
Without the state, you have capitalism

>>49912290
>more schizophrenic garbage
Good. Keep it up until you become an hero

>>49912305
Capital = productive infrastructure like farmland, factories, energy/mineral rights, intellectual property, etc.
Capitalist = private corporation or individual that legally 'owns' Capital and lives off passive capital income rather than any kind of salary
Capitalism = an economic regime dominated by capitalists

>>49912490
Capital, without the state, is freely exchanged. Capitalism is this exactly
Thanks for playing

>>49912561
>Capital, without the state, is freely exchanged.
You wish. Bill Gates doesn't "own" squat without state enforcement of capital property rights.

>>49912616
Again you want to drag the state into it when you clearly consneeded here >>49910944
Stating capital can exist without the state. And without the state obviously people are free to exchange capital
You are advocating capitalism by consneeeding to my point.
>but bill gates
Goalpost status: moved

You lost
Thanks for playing

>>49912690
>Again you want to drag the state into it when you clearly consneeded here
Your IQ is what... 57?
Do you seriously not grasp the difference between the existence of capital and the existence of private ownership of capital?

>And without the state obviously people are free to exchange capital
Exchange can't exist without property rights, numbnuts.