/lit/ - Literature

>>18622464
lol, utter nonsense

>>18622464
Listening to Marxists talk about labor is luminiferous aether tier

I never stop being amazed at the stupidity of leftism.

>>18622464
>This is what Marx was about
People DIED over this shit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgdNdZWWb0c

>we live in a society
woah very profound

>>18622464

We labour in a society

>>18622543
>>18622557
>haha actually society doesnt exist, now get in the pod

>>18622497
I know. I dont know your reasons but to me, its their inability to realise greed is the problem not the system. Greed produces the system, not the other way round. But that greed is inherent as long as ignorance persists, and without ignorance the world would simply cease.

Sigh.

>>18622588
You do not have the mental capacity to understand how much of your life is determined by the actions of abstract processes, so you have to invent grubby little hook-nosed devils to whom you can attribute your very accurate feelings of being systemically buttfucked. It's exactly the same thing as american liberals who think the issues of capitalism begin and end with 'corporate greed,' and if only we could get more black women CEOs who cared more about the environment, then our problems would be solved. The inability to think evaluatively about the effects of systems except in terms of the moral qualities of the people involved in them is a dead giveaway of an absolute bottomwit.

>>18622633
Sure is convenient that it's all abstract processes with nobody in charge that could be held responsible.

>>18622641
>Abolish all private property
That's what you idol said was the meaning of his work. All 20,000 pages can be summed up in 4 words, so do you think the rest is worth reading? Surely if he was saying something of substance, he couldn't sum it up in a single clause.

>>18622464
>The magnitude of value of a commodity is not simply a relationship between the individual labor of the producer and the product (which is what the "substantialist" conception of value amounts to), but rather a relationship between the individual labor of producers and the total labor of society.

A convoluted way to say "supply and demand". Marx was a pseud; he purposefully bloated text to drag out his ideas and fill a whole book. Completely unnecessary, just did it to look smarter than he really was.

>>18622464
>value is determined by the system of distribution related to the commodity, not the labor but into the commodity itself
There is nothing complicated or "wrong" about this. Funny seeing the little kiddies on this board getting filtered so hard. Internet use since birth has fried their brains

Heinrichians...I kneel

>>18622464
what exactly makes this passage significant to the anti marxist?

>>18622464
>>18622490

Is it not fitting that meditation on money, the most reified vector of change, makes one sound insane when considering that change not only does not exist, but is itself an active negativity regarding everything that it is supposed to change, that pure change is the only way by which something never changes?

Previously:

>>>/lit/thread/S18541852#p18553097
>MOREOVER, as there is no meaningful distinction between Western growth and entropy, the latter sucks the former into itself, death becomes a lifelong "process", not so much dying, an actual process with a plausible end, but "process" in the true sense of the pejoratively Heraclitean: dying would imply there is something TO die, but because all things are implicitly dying to being with, since there is no distinction between their growth and their entropy, their death, the exclusive "process", dying, has no object and thus Dialectically becomes the exclusive "thing", death. A death truly per the pejoratively Parmenidean: the resplendent eternal block Dialectically becoming the very Black Cube writhing with the undead. Indeed, motion contains neither motion nor rest, and rest contains them both

>>18622464
>>18622533
>>18622633
>>18622668
>>18622858
>>18623798

>>18623905
>guess who's moving?
You, back to your containment board for newfags

>>18622464
Kneel to what? The only thing this refutes is the naive idea that Marxists think that value is objectively contained within pure labour. The problem still remains that this labour model cannot explain certain valuations without temporarily suspending its own assumptions (thereby making the model not so great).

>>18622633
All abstract, decentralized systems, and the merits or flaws thereof, are collective products of their functional agents. The idea that systems can be solved with the superimposition of other systems is a dead giveaway of modernist pseudointellectualism. Feudal monarchy worked extremely well until the moral and ruling qualities of the aristocratic class completely wore away, at which point the system collapsed into absolutism, and then eventually revolution when the king himself became sufficiently debased. Systems can enter feedback loops, but the conscious agents, being rational and conscious, always have the capacity to end them through their own actions (given that the agent is sufficiently competent enough in addition). The fact that you consider yourself supposedly self-aware enough to acknowledge that the system can be changed is sufficient proof of this. If you reject this assertion, then you refute your own idea of supposedly being aware of the abstract determinisms of your own existence, thereby nullifying your whole point.

>>18622588
greed is irrelevant. maximization of private monetary gain is the normal principle driving capitalist production. and capitalist production exists not because of greed but because of the surpluses produced in the late feudal period plus the technological development that this allowed, and because of how the circumstances allowed for that process to snowball (circumstances such as there being a continent full of useful resources just waiting beyond the ocean)

>>18622836
it's not a convoluted way to say "supply and demand". it describes what is behind supply and demand, i.e. that supply and demand regulate and balance the distrubition of labour between different products so that society is able to reproduce itself

This reads so ugly.

I cant understand how you anglos read german philosophers. I always feel like I am reading a totally different person when I see your screecaps of translated german writings.

>>18622464
Metaphysical bullshit.

>>18624449

See: >>18623798

>>18624449
it's the least metaphysical thing imaginable. it's all purely practical and straightforward: capitalist society isn't planned from top down, so if it persists in time, it must have some other mechanism of apportioning the total labour time it has available in a way that everything necessary for it to continue is produced. that mechanism is the exchange of private products of equivalent values, which validates the individual labours contained in those products as legitimate parts of the total social labour.

>>18624822
Actually it's completely metaphysical. Take for example Marx's refusal to admit basic common sense about inflation and debasement of currency. When the mint mixes in a little bronze with its gold to print more money, Marx claims it is not the excess money being printed which causes its value to go down, but rather the lower amount of labour value which is embodied in bronze vs gold. Even though the people don't know about this debasement, somehow their own evaluation of money changes because of the spooky metaphysical propertly of frozen labour, originating at the mines, which they can somehow detect.

>>18622464
I like when Marx just gives this up randomly when he talks about work day laws. He said that when they legislate the length of the working day to be shorter, capitalists make up for this by making their workers work harder and thus embed more value into their products in the shorter time. But this destroys his entire concept of "socially necessary labour", as since the average amount of labour rises among all industry, it would be impossible to embed more value in a smaller time. This is what I love to hate about Marx- the many times he just flips back and forth on literally his foundational concepts.

>>18622464
I already told you marx(pbuh) was right about everything, and you still doubt

>>18624354
>maximization of private monetary gain
Ie, greed. You refuted your initial claim in the sentence straight after it.

>>18622557
when they let us anyway.
t. reserve army of labour member

>>18622518
not enough. stalin(pbuh) should have kept going till he conquered europe

>>18622464
Economics aside, the writing is just godawful. What is it with Germans and their ability to make the most basic concepts sound incomphrensible?

>>18624941
>Even though the people don't know about this debasement, somehow their own evaluation of money changes because of the spooky metaphysical propertly of frozen labour
no, their valuation doesn't change. the coins continue to function as symbols for the original value

>>18624963
>since the average amount of labour rises among all industry, it would be impossible to embed more value in a smaller time
I don't understand what you're trying to say. if the working day becomes shorter and the intensity increases proportionally to that, then the amount of simple labour embodied in the products will remain unchanged.

>This is what I love to hate about Marx- the many times he just flips back and forth on literally his foundational concepts.
if your understanding of something is incorrect, then new information about the subject will often contradict it, yes. but don't project that on anybody else.

>>18624963
greed involves excessive desire. but maximization strives towards infinity, which you can never exceed. if you want to call maximization greed, you need to introduce a limit. but that limit will be an arbitrary moral invention that doesn't explain anything.

>>18622464
Isn't this just a long-winded way of saying that commodities which require "more" labor hours to produce them at scale tend to be more expensive, and that commodities that require "fewer" labor hours tend to be less expensive?

>>18625831
its a translation problem, if you took regular german and translated it to english this would always be the result

>>18622464
I'm trying to understand that sentence, specifically what "relationship" means in this context.

> The magnitude of value is not a relationship between X and Y, but rather a relationship between U and V
A magnitude is a relationship???

>relationship between the individual labor of the producer and the product
>relationship between the individual labor of producers and the total labor of society
What? what kind of relationships are those?

>>18625988
>what kind of relationships are those?
"relationship" means "the way in which two or more people or things are connected" (Oxford dictionary)
>relationship between the individual labor of the producer and the product
how much labour a producer has put into the product
>relationship between the individual labor of producers and the total labor of society
what part of the total social labour is represented by the product, and consequently by the producer's individual labour.

>>18625988
relationship between the individual labor of the producer and the product is, essentially, the thought experiment of someone labouring alone in a total vacuum
relationship between the individual labor of producers and the total labor of society means putting the labour of an individual in comparison to all other labourers, so in a society things tend too average out between people, so if you have someone that takes 7 hours to produce something and someone that needs 9 hours in a sea of people that take 8 hours neither individual affinity for their labour is going to drastically infuence the value of the commodity

>>18625988
What I think he is trying to say is:

Let f be some function with nice assumptions on it. Choose some commodity K and suppose that a typical worker requires t hours to produce K and let T be the total number of labor hours performed by society over some fixed period. Then Marxism posits that the value of K (valued in units of time) is given by is f(t,T).

>>18625831
You must understand the topic to make correct translation and no one understands this gibberish.
Seriously, Marxists themselves may argue for decades about its "correct meaning".

When Marx talks about value, he’s not coming up with a theory of prices which locates labor as their prime determinant (a theory-of-value which posits labor as its source/substance, ie, a labor theory-of-value) but instead mostly takes the notion of value itself as it’s found in classical political economy (and this is done through what Sam Chambers highlights as a genealogical critique) in order to consider, in a reversal of the Ricardian problem, what value means for labor (a theory-of-labor which focuses on how it is affected by value, ie, a value theory-of-labor). so instead of the classical concern for the regulation of prices by labor-time, Marx is trying to understand how labor itself is regulated by value via the violence of abstraction, domination by time, etc. If you read the first chapter of capital like this, especially with Holloway’s piece on the way to read the very first sentence in mind, the text becomes wildly different. Socially necessary labor time ceases to be a mere economic term which is arrived at theoretically but a kind of self-asserting average which compels the laborer to keep pace with the rhythm of the machine and the constantly increasing tempo of the market.

He talks about labour as if he worked even a single day in his life
Guy died in debt and blamed capitalism for being shitty with handling money.

Kinda like Peterson abusing his meds

>>18626064
cont btw. the Germans mu _fake_ understanding by just repeating the words, it will not work in translation which reveals the lack of substance.

>>18622836
In supply and demand, why are some supply more scarce than other? Why are there more supply of ballpoint than cars? The answer is so easy. Yet nobody knows about it, because they haven't been taught. And/or, are into cognitive dissonance: Marx = starving.

>>18625884
>>since the average amount of labour rises among all industry, it would be impossible to embed more value in a smaller time
I don't understand what you're trying to say. if the working day becomes shorter and the intensity increases proportionally to that, then the amount of simple labour embodied in the products will remain unchanged.
Correct, but Marx claims that this, in this case, increases the value embodied in the products. You can check this yourself on pg. 534 of Vol I, and see his direct contradiction of this on pg. 656 and earlier on pg. 135.

>no, their valuation doesn't change. the coins continue to function as symbols for the original value
their valuation does change. See Gundrisse,
"It is these contradictory functions of money, as measure, as realization of prices and as mere medium of exchange, which explain the otherwise inexplicable phenomenon that the debasement of metallic money, of gold, silver, through admixture of inferior metals, causes a depreciation of money and a rise in price; because in this case the measure of prices is no longer the cost of production of the ounce of gold, say, but rather of an ounce consisting of 2/3 consisting of copper etc."
He repeats this sentiment in Capital also.

>>18625884
>since the average amount of labour rises among all industry, it would be impossible to embed more value in a smaller time
>I don't understand what you're trying to say. if the working day becomes shorter and the intensity increases proportionally to that, then the amount of simple labour embodied in the products will remain unchanged.
Correct, but Marx claims that this, in this case, increases the value embodied in the products. You can check this yourself on pg. 534 of Vol I, and see his direct contradiction of this on pg. 656 and earlier on pg. 135.

>no, their valuation doesn't change. the coins continue to function as symbols for the original value
their valuation does change. See Gundrisse,
"It is these contradictory functions of money, as measure, as realization of prices and as mere medium of exchange, which explain the otherwise inexplicable phenomenon that the debasement of metallic money, of gold, silver, through admixture of inferior metals, causes a depreciation of money and a rise in price; because in this case the measure of prices is no longer the cost of production of the ounce of gold, say, but rather of an ounce consisting of 2/3 consisting of copper etc."
He repeats this sentiment in Capital also.

>>18626108
How is this supposed to work when the State creates $1T with the push of a button to add some zeroes a database?

>>18626070
this is what Marxists have invented to try to save Marxist theory, but it does not hold water. Numerous times throughout Capital he talks about how "prices sometimes fall above, and sometimes below, their value" etc- there are so many passages where what he means by value is the long running price. Prices fall above or below these values based on various factors (see vol II and III) but according to these theories value is still the center point or gravity of prices.

>>18626134
>>18626134
the state does not will value into existance, it only increases the supply of a certain commodity, here dollars. If the supply of a commodity goes up higher than that of other commodities its exchange value lowers.
This is called inflation

>>18626137
Marx never said the price and value are the same thing.
What Marx calls price of production, are the cost of production, plus the average rate of profit.
For Marx, the average profit for a particular producer, is an average, to add to the cost of production. This particularly obfuscate the labor origin of value. Since there is a correlation between value and price of production, but it is hidden by the fact that inferior composed Capital (not heavily automated) will create indeed more value, but make proportionally less profit, and superiorily composted Capital (most automated Capital), will produce items of less value, but make more profits.
It's rather complicated, and someone who hasn't read volume 3 cannot comprehend.

>>18626186
yeah I never said that he said price and value are the same thing, I said that price revolves around value and is influenced by circulation and competition among other temporary factors. It is rather complicated, for someone who has to rely on shaky secondary apologetics instead of reading Marx at his word

>>18626177
It says in >>18626108 that the value of (metal) money is derived from the time spent extracting said metal and minting it. It takes some guy at the Fed 10 strokes of his finger to "create" $1 trillion dollars. So the LTV must break down around the time of the advent of easily-printable paper money.

>>18626081
that dude is still alive though lmao

>>18626108
>You can check this yourself on pg. 534 of Vol I
it doesn't say there that the value embodied in the products increases. do you even mean each single product or all taken together?
it says that the quantity of labour increases _within a single hour of labour_. but under the assumption that the length of the working day decreases proportionally, the value-product of the day remains constant.

>their valuation does change. See Gundrisse,
you've assumed that nobody knows about this debasement, but I don't see any reason to believe this was Marx's assumption as well. it's even made unlikely by the example he choose (an ounce consisting of 2/3 copper). you know back then people would do all kinds of tests or melt coins into bullion all the time?

>>18626203
credit money is not commodity money. "LTV" only concerns commodities.

>>18623905
Marx chads aren't rentcucks.

>>18623905
Only fake marxists are rentcucks. Marx (PBUH) prescribes the solution for the landlord-rentcuck dilemma, in a word, might makes right..

>>18626733
>dilemma

Yikes.

>>18622464
what a fucking retard lmfao

>>18622482
>the producer is a product of their environment therefore their environment helped to shape their product
basic determinism bro

>writing with a pencil in a book
>underlining text in a book
Absolutely haram

>>18623978
the ability to describe a flawed process does not imply that a person has the power or ability to fix/replace that flawed process... most people who are born into the current framework do not even question it or think of it as a framework (its just 'the way life is') and i don't think it is at all intellectually honest to model them as conscious participants. how can you be a conscious participant in a system that you are not conscious of?

Whatever, he only included "physical" labor and ignored the "idea", or "know-how". Labor expenditure alone is not enough to make a carpet if you don't know how to do it (let alone _inventing_ a weaving machine), and this "intellectual capital" is rising constantly in an unmeasurable rate while increasing the value of production output and has nothing to do with physical labor. The organization of production (like Ford's manufacturing line and lots of other inventions afterwards) has a huge impact as well and also is ignored by him.

>>18622518
I know it's fucken based

https://youtu.be/w2fF5xcEvEI?t=30

>>18627166
>he only included "physical" labor and ignored the "idea", or "know-how". Labor expenditure alone is not enough to make a carpet if you don't know how to do it
wrong, the know-how is already accounted for:
>All labour of a higher, or more complicated, character than average labour is expenditure of labour-power of a more costly kind, labour-power whose production has cost more time and labour than unskilled or simple labour-power, and which therefore has a higher value. This power being of higher value, it expresses itself in labour of a higher sort, and therefore becomes objectified, during an equal amount of time, in proportionally higher values.

>and this "intellectual capital" is rising constantly in an unmeasurable rate while increasing the value of production output and has nothing to do with physical labor.
general technical improvement itself doesn't increase the total amount of value. it enables the worker to produce more items in the same period, but at the same time it makes each item cheaper.

>>18626696
>credit money is not commodity money. "LTV" only concerns commodities.
But we still exchange things for money. This puts us in the position of exchanging commodities with labor-denominated values for valueless pieces of paper, which undermines the idea that labor time is the shared quantity between commodities that makes production for exchange possible in the first place. One might object that a dollar bill, for example, entitles one to redeem it for commodities worth X hours of labor. But it's not at all clear that the hours of labor required to produce some commodity K are even related to the value one would arrive at working backwards in the above manner, as this would amount to solving the transformation problem.

>>18627312
>All labour of a higher, or more complicated, character than average labour is expenditure of labour-power of a more costly kind
You have quoted his claim that the product of labor of a more skilled worker is essentially the same as of a less skilled one and only takes less time to make, this is already problematic but I was talking that without inventions the are no products at all and the input of inventors (these includes both new types of consumer goods and _inventing_ new machines and constant _improving_ them) is ignored. He includes _construction_ of machines (capital goods) but not inventing them.
>general technical improvement itself doesn't increase the total amount of value
That would mean that our GDP stays the same all the time. This is sometimes assumed in an "evenly rotating economy" model but it's a huge oversimplification.

>>18626948
That's not even what he's saying. This is part of the labor theory of value, which is a very flawed model for determining the value of a product.

> read a 75 IQ post
>"bruh"
>"I kneel"
> "sus"
> "baka"
> "poggers"
> "mogged"
> "sussy"
I'm so sick of this retarded zoomer nuspeak. Are zoomers the greatest faggots who ever lived?

>>18626696
>The value product of the day remains constant
Read it again, the entire chapter would be best. He says that they eventually, through these means, squeeze even more value out of the shortened work day than they did before.

>you've assumed that nobody knows about this debasement,
What are you talking about? Currencies were being debased before we even had the science to test impurities and decreases in the value of coin was observed (because the supply increased, obviously)

>>18622464
>the goal of Marxism is something other than giving marxists power
Lol, enjoy the gulags

>>18627738
"squeeze even more value out of the shortened work day than they did before." I mean than they did before in the normal work day before it was shortened- e.g, they produced more value in 10 hours than they had previously done in 12 hours, not the same.

>>18627748
If you don't put your enemies in camps, they win.

>>18627492
>This puts us in the position of exchanging commodities with labor-denominated values for valueless pieces of paper, which undermines the idea that labor time is the shared quantity between commodities that makes production for exchange possible in the first place.
those pieces of paper aren't commodities, so I don't see how that would undermine the idea
>But it's not at all clear that the hours of labor required to produce some commodity K are even related to the value one would arrive at working backwards in the above manner
I don't understand how the development of money into credit money is supposed to be relevant here. the reason why prices must correspond to values remains unchanged throughout that development.

>>18627529
>You have quoted his claim that the product of labor of a more skilled worker is essentially the same as of a less skilled one and only takes less time to make
no, that's not what the quote says
>and the input of inventors (these includes both new types of consumer goods and _inventing_ new machines and constant _improving_ them) is ignored
it isn't. I already said that it results in increased productivity.
as for new consumer goods, they only constitute value when they're produced, and, all else remaining equal, they're only produced if the society takes away time from producing some other good and puts it into producing the new good. so there's no extra value produced here. it can let some value free if it serves as a cheaper replacement for some wage good, but that's it.
>That would mean that our GDP stays the same all the time.
no, I said "general technical improvement _itself_". but now that the worker makes the same amount of items in, let's say, half the time, the capitalist requires him to make twice as many of them in a work day. then the total amount of value produced in the day will rise, but only because twice as many items have been made.
in other words, further factors determine whether the value output will be increased. the concept of technical improvement in itself doesn't tell me if the immediate producers will just work half the time and enjoy more leisure or work the same amount of time and produce twice the amount of the product.

>>18627738
>Read it again, the entire chapter would be best.
give me an accurate citation, I won't be rereading the entire chapter. the fact that you went from "p. 534" to the entire chapter makes me suspicious that you don't have one.
>Currencies were being debased before we even had the science to test impurities and decreases in the value of coin was observed
assaying goes back to antiquity. are your observations of prices prehistoric or something?

>>18627761
so you're basing this on just the "or more" part? I think he's alluding to the "immense impetus to the development of productivity" that the intensification further causes. the direct effect of the intensification is described in just the main part of the sentence, where the total value remains constant.

>>18628004
>I already said that it results in increased productivity.
The increased productivity does not originate from physical labor but from intellectual input. It is not a "worker" alone that produces more in the same time (because he is forced to work harder) thus LTV is false. "Capitalists" do not steal the surplus value but may (not necessarily, only when they make the correct decisions) be rewarded for contributing factors of production which are only hand-weaved in the LTV. The increased productivity of a worker (whatever its source) is also reflected in a higher wage he may be able to negotiate - the competitive, free market makes this easier and historically the real wages did rise enormously since the dawn of "capitalism".

>>18626081
Ironically Peterson has articulated the exact same critique of Marx as the other part of your post.

Marxism is a retarded failed ideology but I feel like this "MUH SALT OF THE EARTH BOOTSTRAPS" boomer shit is a dumb basis for critique. You can look at social theory without necessarily having to be the guy who works in the factory itself.

>>18623798
Anon you have descended into a meme reality

>>18629563
>It is not a "worker" alone that produces more in the same time
if you consider it morally then sure, even the inventor's mother who wiped his ass when he was little contributed to that.
but in terms of value it is just the worker. when an invention becomes generalized, capitalists don't pay for it in the production cost of the product and consequently it doesn't enter the price. do you think that if you buy a car, the price includes the cost of the intellectual work of the person who invented the wheel?
>The increased productivity of a worker (whatever its source) is also reflected in a higher wage he may be able to negotiate
it's basically the reverse. when productivity increases, wage goods become cheaper and there's a downward pressure on wages. what the workers have to "negotiate" at that point is that the capitalist doesn't _decrease_ their wage.
except even that is no longer true: now inflation makes sure that wages decrease by themselves, so workers have to constantly fight for raises that in reality would only make up for the loss in wages.
it's astonishing how well this is crafted to fuck the workers, really.
as for real wages, they're beside the point, because we're talking strictly about increases in terms of value, not in terms of bags of potatoes. if your point is that:
- productivity having increased
- the length of the working day having remained constant
- the workers having won wage raises so that the rate of exploitation remains constant
results in the workers getting more products, then that's correct, but it's also beside the point.