/lit/ - Literature

>>14615987
Because it is correct.

stop making threads

>>14616003
>I spend 50 years writing a crappy mlp porn novel as my life entire magnus opus
>therefore it cost millions

>>14616007
Please stop

>>14616007
you've read marx, for sure.

>>14616003
Fpbp

OP is a weak troll

>>14616013
>>14616014
>>14616018
the value of any product is the value the customer is willing to pay for it.

austrian school literally refutes marxism any day.

LTV IS CORRECT
https://youtu.be/emnYMfjYh1Q

>>14616024
NOOOOOO YOU HAVE TO USE MY VALUES

>>14616045
It can easily be disproven.

You can offer me a CD of an AAA videogame that costed 250 millions and I wont pay a shit, not even pirate the game, while I rather pay for the original cave story, a freeware game made by a single guy on his free time.

>>14616024
I’m willing to pay no more for phone services that tax dollars already put into space. I’m also willing to cut the advertising out entirely in order to save money there.

Customers don’t set the prices

>>14616062
how does the economic calculation of things like the godot engine works?

There's 700-800 people working for free on that game engine, for free and without any economic compensation.

The game engine as a product is free.
The product survives with a patreon that makes 12k a month, which allows to hire 3-4 full working devs on it, plus all the collaborations volunteers does on it.

What's the economic value of godot engine?

>>14616078
>What's the economic value of godot engine?
3/5th of a man

>>14615987
>a smug brainlet
so what's new on this board?

>>14616088
It's impossible to use the theory of labour with art.

Just gonna say this: the LTV of Marx, which is different than Ricardo version, Is NOT a cost of production value theory.

>>14616024
You need to be able to sell products for *at least* the cost of production, which includes the cost of labour. If there isn’t at least that, then the product with either not be made, or not be made for very long.
The actual world of production refutes Austrian school daily.

>>14616007
Literally, just read the first 5 pages of Capital. If everybody read *just* that it would reduce the number of stupid posts about Marx by 90%.

I’m gonna make a chart for Marx secondary lit so people don’t have an excuse for this stupid bulls hit anymore.

>>14616140
then why sony sells the playstation at lost for their first years, retard?

>>14616153
>dude just read marx
I ain't gonna read trash, nigger.

I rather read something real like the austrian school, not some faggot who refutes XIX century free market and use it to refute XXI century capitalism.

>>14615987
because theyre not masochistic wage cuqées like u

>>14616164
>I ain't gonna read

leave the thread.

>>14616174
>can't defend his religion
lmao.

why you don't try to debate me then?

why don't u read real economics and not pseudoscience?

>commies
Lol

>>14616178
and you are... how old exactly?
u a ben shapiro fan by any chance?

just fyi, OP is a 31-year-old Colombian schizophrenic who posts baits like these many times a day on /int/ and other boards

what he needs is not a reply, but medication

>>14616189
not a real argument.

I already told you why the austrian school disproves the marxist theory of labour.

why do retards buy phones like apple garbage when android are cheaper and better?

>>14616202
they didn't disprove shit.

Marx only wrote the ground work. He fully expected to be refuted in some ways and the system of Marxism to be taken as a science.

Alright, seeing that majority of /lit/ are actually illiterate brainlets it is necessary to refute some non-arguments used against Marx's labour theory of value
>b-but Marx's theory is just Ricardo's cost of production theory which is wrong
no, in the classical world it was assumed that average cost would be the limit of price because of competitive forces of the market however nowhere did the classical economists explain how costs - which are prices on their own - come into being, in particular Marx scrutinized them for not extending their analysis into the labour market which would inevitably force them to distinguish between labour and labour power
>b-but I put a lot of effort into shitting that turd doesn't it mean that in the light of Marx's theory it is valuable?
no because your shit lacks use value. use value is a prerequisite of exchange value however not all things which have use value are exchanged on the market e.g. a sunday meal with your family
>b-but what if I happen to bump into a diamond while taking a morning walk? picking it up is effortless and therefore the diamond is worthless in Marxian terms
no, this is a very common misconception. it is SOCIALLY NECESSARY LABOUR TIME and not just labour time which determines exchange value. the fact that you found this diamond almost effortlessly would allow you to sell this diamond for a price well below the normal market price but that's just a deviation from the law of value, once you get rid of your diamond the law of value still holds simply because there are no more diamonds to be found effortlessly. however if finding diamonds lying on the ground became more common, it would entail diminution of socially necessary labour time and therefore diminution of exchange value of diamonds. keep in mind that LTV is a theory of long run exchange values and in the short run we might find deviations from it.
>b-but what about works of art?
irrelevant. even Ricardo constrained the utility of his version of LTV to the domain of easily reproducible goods. non-reproducible goods make up a negligible part of country's national product and can be abstracted from, what mattered for the classical economists and Marx wasn't some luxury goods auction but the dynamics of capitalist mass production as a whole

>>14616213
Is not even real economics, is the creationism of economic science.

Is a religion, not real economics.

>>14616202
>not a real argument
not a real answer to my fucking question

>>14616219
>explain how cost
they're based on the emotional calculation of the customer.
read the austrian school.

>use value
what's the use value of art?

how do u define the use value of beethoven nine symphony over millions of other compositions of millions of clasical composers?

what's the use value of fine art paintings that are nothing more than scams?

>Socially necesary labour time
what's the social necesary labour time of luxury goods like the cheap chinese toys I bought off my dog?

literally what's the socially necesary goods of things like videogames and gatcha porn microtransactions?

what's the social value of pornography?

>works of art, Irrelevant
so you consider things that refute your entire analisis irrelevant?

Are videogames irrelevant when It produces something like GTA V a billion dollars?

>negligible part of any country GDP
what's the economic input of anime to japan economy retard?

I literally refuted easily every argument you spouted there.

>but art is irrelevant because it doesn't follow my thoery
So what's the economic value of having nice architecture for things like tourism?

>>14616244
try to refute me nigger.

>but the bible is scientific truth
>read the bible

>>14616261
reread your own questions and realize you are a dumbfuck.

>>14616288
>can't refute my argument
>you're dumb
nice refutation retard commie.

>>14616294
I'm not the same anon. you have problems understanding basic concepts, and since you won't even touch a book there is no hope for you.

>>14616294
Not him, but I think the economy should serve the people, not the other way around.

>>14616164
How do you think that’s a refutation? Obviously those are more complex cases. If you are the manufacturer of a set of connected products you can obviously sell one product at a loss if causes the sales of a different product you sell to have more than compensating sales.
You could afford to sell Pez Dispensers at a loss if it led to people buying so much more Pez that it overcomes that loss. The point I’m making (or rather Marx is making) is that a firm couldn’t sell the *total* of all it’s different products at a loss relative to the cost of production, at least not for an extended period of time, or they would go out of business.

Literally the only point I’m making here is that production costs impose a lower bound on price in the long run. That’s hardly an observation unique to Marx, and it’s just extremely bizarre you seem to want to deny that.

>>14616098
Finally someone understands that, sometimes i feel like this board is just 16 yr old nihilists or nazi larpers or both

>>14616311
why do I need to read garbage like marx when I can read real economic theory like the austrian school?

>>14616314
It doesn't work because art can't be evaluated on economic terms, like labour.

An amateur drawing that took him 2 days has less value than a master drawing that took him 5-10 minutes.

So, is already refuted theory of labour with things like the value of music or drawings.

>but art is irrelevant
then your theory doesn't work if It can't explain a big part of modern economy.

Videogames are worth more in economic terms than the GDP of poor countries, you can't simply say art is irrelevant.

>>14616312
how do u define what should be the goals of the economy?

A marxist bureau?
What if those guys on the goverment decides my need for buying chinese crap to my dog doesn't fullfill the social acceptable needs of the nation?

Should I be punished because some commie retard on the goverment bureau doesn't like my dog?

>>14616332
I think you should be punished for existing, brainlet.

>>14616339
So the end goal of marxism is to genocide people they doesn't like?

Like all the millions that died with mao, holodomor, pol pot and other marxists famines?

>>14616345
Just brainlets.

>>14616355
eugenic socialism ftw

>>14616261
your ignorance is striking
>what's the use value of art?
why does it matter? in Marx's theory socially necessary labour time explains exchange values, use values are their prerequisites but they are not quanitifiable.
>how do u define the use value of beethoven
learn what "define" means
>what's the use value of fine art paintings that are nothing more than scams?
literally doesn't matter in the light of LTV
>what's the social necesary labour time of luxury goods like the cheap chinese toys I bought off my dog?
it's probably low given that you bought them cheaply. honestly, your "gotchas" are tiresome but you probably think that they are brilliant excerpts from some fucking book of revelations so there we go
>what's the social value of pornography?
can you even read? it's SOCIALLY NECESSARY LABOUR TIME, not some fucking social value. still asking a bunch of rhethorical questions hardly qualifies as criticism.
>so you consider things that refute your entire analisis irrelevant?
way to out yourself as a brainlet. Ricardo and Marx never claimed to have a theory of auction prices/prices of works of art simply because they didn't need them. they were interested in a much broader world of industrial mass production. since they never pretended to explain those prices, the fact that LTV does not explain art prices does nothing to refute LTV.
>what's the economic input of anime to japan economy retard?
lmao art means creative effort that is not easily reproducible. to the owner it probably matters a lot if he is in possession of Rembrandt's original painting or a cheap fraud. in contrast manga or anime are just like books and movies, they take a material form of either comic booklets or DVDs/Blu-Rays which are easily reproducible unlike Rembrandt and therefore those material media are subject to the LTV
>Are videogames irrelevant when It produces something like GTA V a billion dollars?
again - games are easily reproducible in their material form which distinguishes them from luxury products available in limited supply and sold during auctions
>I literally refuted easily every argument you spouted there.
keep believing that
>but art is irrelevant because it doesn't follow my thoery
art is irrelevant because most people don't own any works of art anyway. what you seem to take for a work of "art" are reproducible commodities which are different from non-reproducible luxurious paintings etc. inclusion of art into any theory of economic dynamics wouldn't change anything the same way that exclusion of tampons wouldn't change anything in the big picture. also - learn to write
>So what's the economic value of having nice architecture for things like tourism?
use value or exchange value? Marx used well defined terms, if you want to refute him it is advisable to do the same.

>>14616360
>why it matters
I told you.

Art products doesn't follow societal needs.
There's shitty crappy radio songs that produces more money that most of classical albumes.

A shitty justin bieber song produces more money than dozens of lesser known clasical composers.

Like I repeat, the austrian school easily shows that the value of a product is what the customer desires to pay, not how much labour is put on it.

>doesn't matter
It matters because disproves LTV

>cheaply
then how do u explains retarded whales paying 150 grands on shitty animu mobile porn waifu gacha games.

why do people prefer more expensive luxury brands over cheaper brands when their production isn't more expensive?

>SOCIALLY NECESARY LABOUR TIME
So the not socially necesary labour isn't worth nothing and your theory crumbles when it tries to explain things like the value of internet memes?

>industrial mass production
then why apple phones have higher demand than cheaper android phones if both are made on the same factory?

Or some luxury car over a cheaper car that is considered a plebian car by customers?

>not easily reproducible
how that works with informational products like movies, videogames, music, anything that can be duplicated and sent over internet?

>luxury products
doesn't apply to digital products, or things like luxury brands that are made on the same factory as cheaper brands.

>most people don't own works of art
except for all the people that buy books, music, goes to cinema, buy manga, videogames, buy anime figurines and shit like manchildren toys and consoles and apple products?

>non reproducible luxurious paintings
so how non reproducible are luxurious paintings made digitally by world class artists today?

have u seen juan ria or some pixiv paintings that can rival old masters in terms of technique?
Or have u seen magic cards paintings?

>use value or exchange value
how does the LTV explains the fact some european cities are more interesting for tourists to travel to than shitty thirld world towns?

What makes notre dame chappel have any real value to people?

>>14616420
if you told us that you haven't read the Austrian School theorists you like to name-drop so much I wouldn't be even surprised. it is telling that a 4chan board devoted to literature is populated by people who evidently don't read much
>There's shitty crappy radio songs that produces more money that most of classical albumes.
mere fact that some industry is more profitable than the other does nothing to disprove the LTV because what you call "making money" depends not only on exchange prices but also quantity sold. LTV only seeks to explain exchange prices. suppose you have two producers - a huge modern factory endowed with up to date capital and a small manufacture. if the manufacture wants to compete with the factory they'll have to set roughly the same prices as this factory although the factory will be nominally making a lot more money than the manufacture. as long as the price they both set is in agreement with LTV there is no contradiction here - as expected the rates of profit will equalize in both firms but since capital invested is much greater with the factory they will make a lot more money than the manufacture. honestly I don't know why you thought that was a refutation of LTV and I'm pretty sure you don't know that either
>Like I repeat, the austrian school easily shows that the value of a product is what the customer desires to pay, not how much labour is put on it.
Joan Robinson refuted that notion long ago showing that this pathetic theory of value is circular - goods are bought because they have utility and we know they have utility because they are bought. sorry excuse for a theory of value as is evidenced by its main proponents' inability to answer basic question about f.e. the effect of technological change upon distribution of income between labour and capital (they say it's dependent on a coefficient called elasticity of substitution whatever the fuck that is so it's just another non-explanation because there is no telling if this coefficient remains constant over time or for that matter what it's equal to at the moment)
>why do people prefer more expensive luxury brands over cheaper brands when their production isn't more expensive?
funny thing is Austrian "theory" doesn't explain that either because utility is said to be independent of both the price and income of the purchaser. best we can do is invoke the Veblen effect but that's sociology not economics (however in Marx's writings they are as intimately related as they can be). but if you seriously want a quasi-Marxist explanation read Baudrillard
>then why apple phones have higher demand than cheaper android phones if both are made on the same factory?
and what is your explanation of this fact for that matter? if you invoke "utility" I refer you back to Joan Robinson's refutation of it. what matters to the LTV is not that some brands are cheap and some expensive but that on average phones are going to be in relation to cars as respective necessary labour times

>>14616261
>What is the use value of fine art paintings

Again, read the first chapter of Capital, you literally wouldn’t have any of these questions if you read for less than 15 minutes of the primary material. It’s astonishing the degree to which Capital is front-loaded as a book. It’s 3 chapters of his whole theory, and then 2000 pages of drawing out the implications.

The answer is that the use-value literally just means ‘possessing a quality that is desired’. The use-value of art is ‘satisfying a desire for art’, as well as ‘possessing an indicator of social status’ in the case of fine art and luxury goods in general.

>Socially Necessary

Jfc, it’s literally all in the first few pages. Marx isn’t talking about the social good or necessity of the commodity, he’s talking about the necessary amount of labour requires to make a commodity at a given instance. He is *specifically* addressing the idea that an idiot might say that because it took him 20 hours to build a thing that another worker built in 6 that his has ‘more value’ because it embodies more ‘labour-time’. Marx is saying this is obviously wrong. The amount of ‘labour-time’ embodied in a commodity is the *average* labour-time across all the competitors making goods in the same market at that moment. ‘Socially necessary’ is just his 19th century way of getting to the point that competition in essential in how a market comes to the Value of a commodity. The ‘average’ is important because it trims out excessively inefficient firms/workers, who will be excluded from the market in the future, and extremely efficient firms/workers, who are using techniques which represent the way the market will then move (and thus the ‘socially necessary labour time’ is always changing as technology and techniques (innovation) are developed).


>>14616332
You are willfully conflating two different categories of things. The economics of video game sales, horror movies, or thriller novels is very different from why a Pollock painting has its value. Marx’s theory is concerned with the products of industrial capitalism, things that are produced and then sold at markets. This does fully capture ‘play station games’, but the valuation of a famous piece of work is different. Marx’s economics presupposes there being a market with some notion of supply and demand at work, albeit mostly implicitly. The case of people fighting at auction for a specific one of a kind item falls outside the scope of industrial production. Marx’s theory can describe the situation of Nintendo games competing against PlayStation, and different third party makers or PS games competing against each other, but when it comes to explaining the auction for Miyamoto’s first ever drawing of Mario, that lies outside the ‘normal’ dynamic of capitalist production.

>>14616562
>factory profitable
doesn't explain how an apple phone that has cheaper components and the same labour cost and also made in the same factory should cost 4-5 times more than an android phone.

Also doesn't explain things like how emotions affect customers.

why some musician band that has an emotional conection to someone has a diferent economic value to people than another band they hate.

>they have utility
porn doesn't have utility.
music doesn't have utility.

Going to a movie because that's how you'll impress a girl you want to fuck has not utility related to the product.
Why people trie to outcompete each other with expensive gifts to get the love of a girl doesn't have any relation to the utility of the product.

Also doesn't disprove the psychological factor why people think higher prices means a better product quality wise.

Or why some luxury goods are super expensive simply to limit their demand to the elite castes (the entire point of fashion economies and things like how free videogames economies like fornite works).

>Technological change
doesn't explain how fashion industry works, nor why some people use credit to afford social status simbols (like what collectors does).

why vinyl records are still having demand even while they're technologically obsolete products.

Also doesn't take into account the economics of nostalgia.

>doesn't explain
neither the LTV, there's a bunch of psychology tricks that effect the economical evaluation of a product.

The entire point of marketing as a sciene is to find mental loopholes to exploit (skinner boxes).

>fact
social status.

look up how humans can pay more for products that elevate their social status (the entire point of luxury goods).

>>14616609
use-value, sure but that is indepedant of the labour cost.

It's related to the emotional value of the product to the customer.

>average time
sure, for some.
for things like music there's not average.

there's not average of how much time it takes to compose a song.
It took beethoven decades to compose the ninth symphone and it takes newgrounds crappy musicians 30 minutes to produce a song.

It took uematsu 10 minutes to compose the prelude of FF while It took him a shit ton more time to compose the final theme of FFVII.

The 10 minutes song has been used in more games than the song it took him a month to compose.

Again, the average time is irrelevant for things like hand crafted products, because there's not average.

Some art pieces takes decades to make, others take a couple days or weeks to make.

There's not average of how a painting should take.

>only captalists productions
so it doesn't even explain the entire economic valuation of a shit ton of non economic forces

how do u evaluate the economic value of natural resources and things like protecting the amazonas or an animal species?

>but this falls outside my meme theory
then is worthless as theory since It can't even explain most of the economic exchanges like prostitution

>>14616609
again, your meme thoery doesn't explain how most markets function.

why some dog breeds are more expensive than others.

why a mutt dog is cheaper than a dog from pure breed.

>>14616700
and shit like human tracking or the drug market.

the TLV is pseudoscience.

>austrian shills
Reminder that you're just as heterodox as Marxism in mainstream economics.

Anyway, wages = marginal revenue product so people are paid exactly what they're worth to the company. Surplus value is a meme.

>>14616739
austrian economics is the redpilled version of economics.

Anons trolling arguments against shit they refuse to read is the exact kind of anti-intellectualism thats killing this board

>>14616762
In a way it is working though. I support LTV more now after reading their retarded "refutations".

>>14616762
retarded marxists try to explain how art follows theory of labour, which is funny because economics can't explain the economic evaluation of art.

>>14616773
explain how LTV evaluates art.

>>14616777
if you were truly, honestly interested in having that explained to you then why refuse to read the very thing that does so?
I suspect you actually want to be told something youll already approach as false and continue to btfo le marxist kiddos

>>14616700
>again, your meme thoery doesn't explain how most markets function.
>why some dog breeds are more expensive than others.
right, and the Austrian "explanation" for it? some dog breeds are more expensive because people want to pay more for them! brilliant explanation - if you're genetically retarded, that is. explaining exchange value through invocation of "what people want to pay" is worthless because it doesn't allow you to make any concrete predictions. future prices will inevitably depend on "what people want to pay" for the commodities and this subjective notion of value is inherently impossible to capture quantitively. Marx wanted to have a predictive model of capitalism's mechanics, he wasn't interested in explaining differentials in canine breed prices. he was primarily interested in macroeconomic side of things and your refusal to acknowledge this is why you're losing time on these petty microeconomic "refutations" of yours which in the long run are only deviations from a fundamental law of value. even Alfred Marshall knew that in the long run prices in a perfectly competitive market tend to average costs. this is but a step from the Marxian formulation of law of value - if long run limit of prices is average cost then the ration of prices must equal ratio of average costs. all costs are in the end labour costs and hence the labour theory of exchange value.

>>14616007
Read the fucking book

>>14616786
why can't u try to explain it to me?

I already told you I don't consider marxism as real economics.

so why do I want to read the bible of a religion?

>>14616787
supply and demand.

read any basic econ 101 like tomas sowell.
A shiba inu in my shithole, even a mutt shiba inu is very expensive because is rare, while the most pure breed shiba inu in japan are killed because they're stray dogs there.

Marx predictive value is complete rubbish and has been refuted by better economists since 1920.

The price of a product depends on the supply and demand of it, but that demands depends on subjective emotional values of every customer.

Nigger.

>>14616790
I already read real economics books, no need for fancy pseudoscience.

>>14616777
>>14616360
All the answers are in this thread if you read

>>14616007
>he made a thread for this

>>14616810
You're asking questions about a text that the text itself answers. You're clinically retarded. Also, stop it with the reddit spacing, tourist. It hurts my eyes.

>>14616787
How does the LTV explain the ballooning price of real estate?

>>14616818
>read my text
don't care.

seems like you also haven't read it because you can't refute me.

>read the bible It refutes evolution
not a real argument.

>>14616739
this better be a joke. according to neoclassical "economics" market wage = marginal revenue product OF THE LAST UNIT OF LABOUR EMPLOYED. so if say a company employs 10000 people then only the last one employed (assuming that they were employed in a decreasing order of their marginal productivity) is paid what he contributes to the firm's revenue, all the other 9999 are paid less than their marginal product. if everyone was paid exactly according to his or hers marginal product there wouldn't be any potential source of profits.
that is not to say that neoclassical theory of wages is without its flaws. clearly it cannot be endorsed. first of all, marginal analysis fails at a macro level because someone's revenue is another person's cost. at a macro level marginal revenue cannot explain wages because it is mostly wage earners who buy commodities and therefore contribute to the revenue pool. second of all Marx had a much better theory based on the existence of reserve army of labour or the unemployed who could threaten workers with entry into labour markets if workers' wage demands became too excessive

>>14616831
Nigger if you were asking me about the christian myth of creation I would tell you to read the bible

>>14616825
LTV doesn't discount supply and demand, it only suggests that over time a commodity with tend towards its labour value. it full accepts that there are market forces which deviate this tendency

>>14616420
I’m begging, just the first section even;
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm

You keep repeating the same completely wrong line about the LTV and it’s getting embarrassing.

It’s not about how much work a specific worker put into a specific item. How it is not obvious that nobody would hold such a view? Such a view would clearly ascribe labour with a sort of magical power to imbue things with this metaphysical property called ‘value’. Marx’s whole theory is presupposing things being brought to MARKETS. Why are communists so obsessed with destroying the free market? The way you describe capitalism in the Austrian view makes it sound like the world is a series of yard sales, where people’s lives are just visiting other yards and choosing to make an exchange or not based on how they feel about the prices directly in front of their eyes.

When Marx talks about the value of a commodity we are already supposing that’s it’s been brought to a market and exchanged. If it’s not, then the item doesn’t have use-value and isn’t a commodity. Marx explicitly says that the work that formed the item isn’t Labour in the economic sense he means. All work doesn’t have value, and all labour isn’t equally valued either. This is literally all there in the book.

It’s worth pointing out that anything that can be infinitely digitally duplicated in an unrestricted way doesn’t have any value. You may have noticed that in the last 20 years this actually has had a pretty big impact on how music and movies are sold.

My local movie theatre now has big reclining chairs, rather than cheap folding seats. They have moved from selling just the movie, to selling ‘the theatre experience’ because that *isnt* infinitely reproducible. Musical acts have heavily shifted away from reliance on album sales. Others have rigorously tried to enforce copyright on things like YouTube to limit the ‘infinite reproducibility’. None of this seems at odds with Marx or any other Economic school I can think of.

>iPhones vs Androids
The whole notion of brand differentiation has certainly been elaborated on by economists in the 20th century but the basis resource in Marx is to point out that these have different use-values. The social aspect of a commodity is completely tied up in use-value for Marx. How ownership of an item affects your social status *is* it’s use-value. Getting the girl to marry you *is* part of the use-value of the Diamond, not just it’s physical properties to resist being scratches etc. For more on that I’d refer you to Capital vol 1, chp 1, sec 4.

I’d also make the point that Marx is far less interesting in learning about how labour makes the value of a commodity as he is about how the value of a commodity affects the value of labour. For more on that see D. Elson’s Value: The representation of labour in capitalism.

>>14616831
>I don't read I only post about books I haven't read on the literature board
classic

>>14616825
https://critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com/the-marxist-theory-of-ground-rent-pt-1/

Dunno lol. Economics has always been a bunch of fairy stories masquerading as science

>>14616836
why can't u simply tell me why my arguments I'm wrong IF YOU ALREADY READ THE BOOK?

I consider capital some analisis of XIX century economists.

why the fuck do I need to read some refutation of Darwin to disprove modern genetics?

have u ever tried to read anything more modern than marx?
have u read any free market school?

>>14616847
>markets
because it has been observed on non humans.

prostitution exist beyond humans.
female chimps learn to use sex as economic unit of exchange for some kind of money they later use as food, this has been documented in labs.

>market and exchanged
All economic activities fall into the basics of supply and demand and can be studied with economics, not just industrial demand.

>doesn't have use-value and isn't a comodity
everything can have economic value, even shit like sex has economic utility.

A forest can be a commodity to some people.

>all work doesn't have value
economic valuations can work on things like natural resources or the value of trash, or the value of relationships and love.

have u ever read any economic analysis of human hypergamy?

>non of this seems to be at odds
So their value isn't related to how much labour cost them but some "subjective" "experience" that isn't related to how much labour it has?

>use value
sure, but how this use value which is emotional and subjective has any effect on the labour cost?

>but the labour cost are average of social time
how do u average the time it takes to compose music?

>>14616849
>I can't defend the book I've read
>trust me I know because I've read the book but can't defend it

>>14616897
Everyone is telling you why you're wrong, I'm just saying that you would save yourself time and embarrasment by reading the book

>>14615987
You can't falsify a supply and demand curve or socially necessary labour time so all explanations of economics are fundamentally unfalsifiable and not scientific.

>>14616837
I dont yet understand why labor exists as a seperate class of business expense. Isnt the mean price of labor also determined through supply and demand? Areas with an excess of labor have lower wages, areas with a shortage of labor have higher wages. This appears to ring true across differing countries, provinces, industries, etc.

>>14617056
Read Ricardo on "Absolute Value And Exchangeable Value" if you're not familiar with the classical debate over a theory of relative prices:
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/ricardo-the-works-and-correspondence-of-david-ricardo-vol-4-pamphlets-and-papers-1815-1823#lf0687-04_head_104

>>14616931
wrong. you cannot falsify supply and demand theory but you can falsify LTV. also
>believing in naive falsificationism
read Lakatos

>>14617126
no you can't, literally all value theories are unfalsifiable metaphysical cope
>read Lakatos
cringe

why is everyone still so hung up about marx?

its not the early 80's aymore

>>14616646
Use-value is a qualitative concept, not a quantitative one. Marx says this in the third and fourth paragraph of the first chapter of capital.

It’s kind of impressive how dedicated you are to refuting something you have literally no knowledge about.

Porn and music both obviously have use-values, which is the enjoyment of their consumption.
The big difference here seems to be that you Austrians want to say that the only thing that matters in capitalism is how much people subjectively value things people try to sell to them, while the Marxists are saying ‘yes, people’s subjective valuation is important, but it’s not the whole story’.

The reality is that your theory doesn’t explain why vinyl records are still bought, or fashion changes every 6 months, or people buy luxury goods on credit either. It’s all just ‘the person wanted it such that they valued it more than its cost’. That is no more or less of an explanation than saying ‘it has use-value to somebody’. Marx’s Capital isn’t concerned with why some people see some goods as being very desirable and other as not.

Like this whole discussion is caught up on the fact that you seem to think first that Marx actually accepts Ricardo’s LTV wholesale, and that this
constitutes a theory of price in Marx, which it doesn’t.

Beethoven’s music was not composed according to the laws of a capitalist economy. He lived on the funding of patrons, and then composed music. He wasn’t writing music to sell on a market while competing against other musicians also selling their music.

It’s important to understanding Marx that he (and everybody else) understood that Capital is *not* a general theory of economics that is forever valid for all of time. It’s a narrow theory that seeks to explain the unique function of the capitalist mode of production. All production that is completely individual, (not involving any division of labour) including artisans, lawyers who aren’t members of firms, private-practice doctors, independent skilled trades etc are treated as a different category within the economy, than wage-workers or the owners of firms.

Marx’s theory has different goals than later economists do. He did write Capital to explain the rise and fall of prices in the market. He wrote it to explain the large scale structures of capitalist society, and the trends therein. The ultimate goal was an explanation of the mechanisms of economic crisis. That’s what it’s all building up to. Various examples about fashion trends and dog breeds are irrelevant to the conclusion that normal industrial capitalist production will lead to periodic crises of overproduction, gradual monopolization and other related effects.
Also you point to a bunch of jobs which produce services rather than commodities per se, here is a PDF to how those are handled in Marxian thought:

https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/id/534127/0935.pdf/

>>14617134
Promising to raise the status of the entire lower classes is literally never going to go out of fashion. "we can all be the kings!', the human mind is just too susceptible to this to refuse it

>>14617056
From the perspective of the capitalist, labour is just another production cost. For Marx labour is the thing that connects all commodities, and is essential to their exchangeability. Everything that you can possibility buy is 1) the products of the natural world 2) transformed by human labour into its present useful form. And this transformation can be as simple as just ‘gathering’ (picking up a bunch of nice shells etc) or as complex as synthesizing a wholly new chemical as a medicine. At the end of the day both originate as parts found in nature, ‘transformed’ by human effort.

You can see there that Marx is still very much an ‘enlightenment’ era thinker, the foundation of his analysis is about the nature of Man and his relationship to Nature. Labour holds a special place in Marx’s thought even before he develops him mature economic theories because he sees it as being the fundamental thing that mediates the mans relationship to The World. Man’s survival is based on the metabolism of nature through labour.


In the later chapters of Capital Marx will argue that all fixed capital (machines etc) contribute no value to the commodity. There existence is solely in modifying the efficiency of labour.

>>14616332
>why do I need to read garbage like marx when I can read real economic theory like the austrian school?

So why are you in this thread arguing Marx concepts?

>>14616140
>You need to be able to sell products for *at least* the cost of production, which includes the cost of labour. If there isn’t at least that, then the product with either not be made, or not be made for very long.
And this refutes Austrianism how? The value doesn't stop being the value just because it loses the business money. Austrians don't claim businesses don't go out of business

>>14617226
>In the later chapters of Capital Marx will argue that all fixed capital (machines etc) contribute no value to the commodity.
this is very strange

>>14615987
It beats facing the realities of life...

>>14616007
>>14616013
You are all retarded for engaging with op

>>14616322
YES The whole point is dividing what is a science and what is an art.

>>14616024
Very true. The price is what the market will bear. It is the way of things.

>>14616024
this

>>14617261
it's also correct, automation didn't make commodities more value, it did the opposite.

>>14617226
>In the later chapters of Capital Marx will argue that all fixed capital (machines etc) contribute no value to the commodity.
No NEW value is added to commodity, but embodied (dead) labor is added, according to the replacement cost

>>14617321
>>14617335
>t. brainlets

>>14617261
It is pretty weird! But Marx spends a significant amount of time explaining exactly why that’s the case in chapter 15 of the first volume of Capital.

Considering every ‘rebuttal’ that has been offered so far is refuted in the first couple pages of Capital I don’t see any point in offering more than a reference.

>>14617354
prove it

>>14617336
The decrease in price does not reflect a decrease or increase in value. The price is regulated by market forces.

>>14617361
and, according to ltv, that price, although effected by market forces, tends towards its labour value. this explains why the price goes down, machines do not add labour value, and thus the price the commodity would tend towards would be cheaper than before.

>>14617347
That makes no sense, prefabricated products produced through machinery carry greater value to consumer than raw material in a number of fields

>>14617380
but people built the machines

>>14617380
Define value

>>14617380
Energy expenditure is also a cost. Nothing escapes entropy.

>>14617392
I'm sorry he didn't question beg and assume the Marxist conclusion of Marxist analysis to be valid with no evidence that isn't explained better by better explanations like the marginalist one

>>14617380
see
>>14617347

>>14617347
>embodied (dead) labor
how does this exist?

>>14617407
obviously a commodity retains value even after the labour has been embodied in it.

>>14617413
and how is that retained value that did not exist prior to the labor different than added value?

>>14617413
>is added
>retains value
?

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as value,
is in fact, price, or as I've recently taken to calling it, the money-form of value.

>>14617407
I'll take a crack at it, but someone correct me if I'm wrong. Imagine there is need for exactly 100 widgets and it takes 1 person laboring a full year to produce 1 widget. A machine is produced that can make 100 widgets in a year. All 100 human laborers just got replaced and if they all quit making widgets then the market keeps the price of widgets stable. That machine just embodied the labor of 100 people. If the 100 people compete against the machine the market adjusts the price to reflect 200 widgets for a 100 demand. The price of a widget goes down and embodied labor goes down. If you had an absurdity like 1000 machines making 100,000 widgets for a 100 demand the price approaches the bare minimum and the embodied labor is almost nil.

Brooooo imagine not being a marginalist ahahahah lmaooooo like bro just take an intro to econ class

>>14617420
a factory isn't made in a factory anon, it takes labour to create automated machines

>>14617455
this

>>14617448
Then does it not stop being labor as it is the machines doing it?
>>14617461
what happens to the LTV when it does?

>>14617481
>what happens to the LTV when it does?
read Marx's fragment on machines from Grundrisse

>>14616164
I agree with you that it's the biggest and most consequential pile of garbage that exists on this planet but you should still read it just to mock their retarded ideology.

>>14617402
>marginalist
Cringe.

>>14617544
what is it wrong about

>>14617584
It's circular and doesn't explain economic value.

>>14617612
explain

It doesn't look like anybody here has read volume 2 and 3...

>>14617507

This, dont be a faggot.

>>14616078
>...product is free
>...with a patreon
>Btfo-ing yourself while I’m gone
Thanks.

>>14616314
Pez Dispensers? The same Dispensers of Pez® Candy, Inc.?
What an interesting example...