/lit/ - Literature

>>22595131
That's just religious doctrine and I'm afraid I'm an atheist so (You) and that tranny jew Marx will die in the gulag.

>>22595131
hmm lemme think anon...
why is that sectors with different ratios of labour have the same profit?
btw you know marx applies this theory only to reproducible commodities r-right?

>>22595131
A few weeks ago the dentist charged me 200$ for a work that took about 15 minutes. Is dentist labor truly worth 800$/hour? Must be super exhausting mentally and physically. Forgot to mention that while working on my tooth the dentist lady kept merrily chatting with a nurse about her weekend.

>>22595131
It's blatantly wrong.

If I dig a massive hole in the ground for years, I have used a LOT of human labour. Yet that hole is completely worthless.

Value is completely subjective.

For example, certain rich people eat meals with golden flakes on them, which are nutritionally worthless, just in order to flaunt their wealth. These meals can cost up to the thousands. As for myself, I wouldn't eat such a meal even if it were offered to me for free. Thus I value the meal negatively, would have to be paid to eat it, whereas those showy rich people value it in the thousands.

There is no "real value" to the meal.

There are economic trends associated with price. This is because people will try to sell for as much as possible and buy for as little as possible. Competition ensures that sellers have to reduce their prices to the highest possible amount they think people will be willing to pay.

>>22595138
>>22595148
>>22595152
>>22595169
>>22595172
You guys don't get it. Anything that is produced is produced through labour, and nothing else.

All this extra stuff -- finance, ownership titles, shareholding -- are mere abstractions.

Labour isn't an abstraction -- it is that which produces, by definition. And it is the ONLY thing that produces.

When a capitalist sells you something, he is selling you something produced through labour. But he is adding a markup to it so he can gain a profit.

When society reaches the point where the "price" at which you "buy" something is the same "price" at which it was produced, ie. in terms of labour, then we are on the way to a much more natural state of affairs.

>>22595189
>then we are on the way to a much more natural state of affairs.
But this never happened in nature though. Everyone sells to make a profit if he is able to, including the 6000 bc farmer selling apples for a baby ox
And that's a naturalistic fallacy. If we didn't use technology or clothing we would be in a much more natural state of affairs

Why is that which you say, good?

>>22595189
>When society reaches the point where the "price" at which you "buy" something is the same "price" at which it was produced, ie. in terms of labour
not even animals do that, the dominant males and families eat more than those who hunted more. people who were cutting marble in the bronze age were paid less than good cooks
i'm afraid marx had a very unnatural vision of the world. i have no reason to follow someone completely incompatible with nature, sorry.

>>22595210
Marx would say that bronze age man was already alienated from his species-essence.

If the LTV is right then that means that you will pay me for a bucket of shit because I put work into making it.

>>22595131
>labour theory of value
Equivalent to the theory that Jews are ugly because they don't have foreskins. Sounds convincing but ultimately false and made up.

>>22595169
How much did he charge you to suck down Mountain Dew and smoke weed all day faggot? It’s called a tooth brush loser lmao. Just like brush your teeth, was he supposed to spend $400k on dental school and come clean up your mess for free?

Bet your breath smells like shit loser

>>22595204
Well look, the process of competition makes the selling price go ever closer to the true price, ie. the cost of production which is more representative of labour put into making something.

A capitalist would love to sell you a piece of bread for a million dollars. But he knows there are people undercutting him.

If there ever comes a time when cost of production = sales price how is that not obviously more natural.

If a factory of cubans making cigars sells the cigars to a distributor at $1, and then the distributor retails it to you at $100, do you think the cigar is "truly worth" $100?

Not really, it's worth even less than $1, which is demonstrated by the fact that they make it for less than $1.

>>22595217
You can go back to neanderthals or archaic humans, people good at making weapons ate more than (or the same as) the hunters but with less effort
value is arbitrary. good neanderthal painters probably made jack shit out of their labor
in packs of animals hunting, some don't chase or they chase not as hard. some will entrap instead, often not having to do anything. they still get to eat
the females still get to eat despite having much less laborious work to do
Hippies were closer to the natural truth than marx

>>22595189
Finance & ownership are not "abstractions"

Finance relates to the monetary health of a business. If you don't have this, you don't have the funds to provide for the labour you use. Accountants have existed since before capitalism.

If you don't have ownership, who decides what to make? Everyone within a firm just does whatever they want? Who pays for the materials, and the long term assets required to make things?

When a capitalist sells you something, they are getting a mark up for the a) risk of spending capital to produce goods & services, and b) the organisation of the resources required to produce those goods.

>>22595241
And just to add.

There is NOTHING stopping you from creating a business where capital is 100% employee owned. But no one does, because employees are stupid.

>>22595241
>Finance relates to the monetary health of a business. If you don't have this, you don't have the funds to provide for the labour you use.
What are "funds"? They are abstract labour. They represent labour. A company exchanges its "funds" for labour. Investment is exclusively the purchase of labour. Even if you buy materials, you are paying for the labour of their being harvested/mined and delivered to you.

>>22595238
>cost representative of labour
How is that calculated? Also most of the stuff made today is automated, human labor involved is just managers and programmers

>If a factory of cubans making cigars sells the cigars to a distributor at $1, and then the distributor retails it to you at $100, do you think the cigar is "truly worth" $100?
Cuban cigars (distributed by Habanos) are now up by 250% from two years ago lol. Cohiba robusto and Siglo series are 70-90 euro. Behike 200+
They had less production and high demand so they just charged more. It costs less than 1$ per cigar, every roller (maker) rolls hundreds of cigars daily, and they are paid at best 200-400 per month.
Master rollers are paid much more. These also work less, they just train other rollers. But they (their labor) are of greater value to the owner (the state, in this case)

>>22595254
and to add
Many people who smoke cubans agree they are worth their money. From cheap-ass Piedras to Cohiba maduro torpedo. So I don't get what your point is, you just think it's worth nothing, others think it is worth more, and both of your opinions are irrelevant to the price they are ultimately sold, without being able to prove why that price is "wrong"
>it's not natural!
and? it is natural for this discrepancy to exist and has existed long before capitalism

>>22595243
It's not efficient anymore to start a business from scratch due to cost of labour, matereals and bureaucracy, as well as a cadre of people defining the very market on which you are then supposed to play. They also have the ability to steal your monetary value by printing out more paper, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Is there anything you can do without a certificate these days? I want to build a house in the middle of nowhere where nobody lives, in land that is technically owned by state, but they can't possibly hold it due to accessibility and lack of personel. But I can't do that because I don't "own" the soil, since Roman Corporatism is still alive, and I can't do that because I don't have certificate, and because I haven't invited an expert to suck out a worth of my value even before I get to begin to produce something. A similar thing happens in other fields, although in different abstractions.

If anything I don't think the issue is capitalism as everyone tries to paint it, not even economcs at that. It's centralization of power and bureaucracy.

>>22595254
>Cuban cigars (distributed by Habanos) are now up by 250% from two years ago lol. Cohiba robusto and Siglo series are 70-90 euro. Behike 200+
Yeah I know. But my point is that a cuban cigar is not really worth that much. What is a cigar? It is the product of labour. What labour? Growing tobacco leaves, harvesting them, drying them, fermenting them, rolling them, and then finally, delivering them to people. That is what a cigar is. Everything else on top of that is something parasitical, something not right, something underhanded.

>>22595269
>is a cigar?
Tobacco leaves of different quality. Many are made by machines instead of hecho a mano
>That is what a cigar is.
That is usually how a cigar is made. its value is arbitrary. they could use cow dung for filler in the same process, how much would it be worth? we do spend some time laboring daily in the toilet after all
>Everything else on top of that is something parasitical, something not right, something underhanded.
why?

>>22595239
He talks about that. He says that among foragers, hunters and such the excess share accorded to people of high status was perishable, and hence didn't contribute to alienation.

>>22595280
also, some aficionados don't like cubans and prefer nicaraguans. They think 35 bucks for one of the small siglos is a waste of money. but they gladly pay much more for nicaraguan cigars
value is arbitrary as i said. it depends only on what it has to offer
90% of the labor that goes into a cigar is completed before it is rolled. but its worth at that stage is 0, just leaves

>>22595296
What does he mean by alienation in this context?

>>22595280
>why?
Everyone knows why. The same reason why when I got my first job at a restaurant and they revealed that the meals are made for $1.50 but sold for $11-17 they told me it's a company secret that I will get fired for giving away...

it is “right”, but baudrillard’s sign value theory makes more sense. it also fails to take into account that people pay what something is worth to them. if a millionare is stuck in the desert moments away from death by dehydration, he might pay everything for some water

>>22595249
>>22595249
Funds are what you pay your labour to work for you, correct. This doesn't change any of my points about finance and ownership being useful. If you can't fund or direct your labour (or the labour of your suppliers) because your finance is shit, and no one can decide what to do, you can't produce anything.

>>22595267
I don't disagree it's hard to start a small business, and we live in a highly regulated society. I'm not educated enough on Economics to argue about banks printing money, however, I don't disagree with money as a concept due to its ability to make bartering so much easier.

I don't hate the idea of certification for many businesses, especially those in Food, Agriculture, Health, Shelter. In a perfect world we would be able to understand what we buy & use, but 99% of us don't understand a thing about the things we rely on daily, and so we rely on other experts to do so for us.
It's different if you want to build a shack for yourself in the woods, but unfortunately, no land is free anymore in the 1st world. I don't understand power as I never studied philosophy, but I see it as might = right and no other way to change that. Even if you go to the Congo and build a shack this is true. You will have to defend your home one way or another.

>>22595311
That your labor contributes to your own enslavement. In the most abstract & obscure sense, imagine that you're working in a pen factory, and the pens you produce are used by capitalists to write down the calculations that determine your unfair salary and oppressive working hours.

>>22595313
>Everyone knows why.
i dont know why something that has existed since before humans were a thing is unnatural

>>22595328
To clarify my point about starting a small business. There is no difference between starting a small business under a capitalist or socialist theory of capital. You can do both, and both will face the same external market forces. If you want to try out your labour theory of value & distribution of means of production, you can!

Just the capitalist one is more likely to survive, due to the aforementioned benefits of capital ownership.

>>22595332
I think about this whenever my direct deposit goes to my retirement portfolio, which includes boogeyman of the week companies like Pfizer and blackrock

>>22595332
All labor can be called such, because it helps society function but in that society I am not a king and get exploited, therefore it is contributing to my suffering no matter what it is.

I don't think Marx understood human nature. Or labor.

>>22595328
The point is that finance is artificial. It is abstract and doesn't represent anything. That is why it is so interchangeable. Anyone wouldn't care about swapping their £10 for someone else's £10. Their £10 is not really theirs, it's not a commodity, it's just an abstract sort of mystical idea they have about themselves.

"Investment" means nothing but buying labour. But what is money? It is abstract labour. So the financier is buying concrete labour with abstract labour. None of it makes any sense.

The labour is the thing in itself, which actually exists, which actually produces. Finance produces nothing. The world could at least theoretically exist without financiers, but not without labour.

>>22595349
>But what is money? It is abstract labour
Money is a representation of purchasing power, and labor is not. There is also no fixed value of labor(s). Does Marx say anything about this?

>>22595334
So why are businesses so reluctant to share their margins? Why don't they say "we made this for $1 but we're selling it for $20"? I mean, clearly, everybody would be fine with that, it's completely normal and natural!

>>22595355
Someone who loans out money at interest is not producing anything, and neither is a financier investor. Only labour produces. Money and finance are parasitical upon labour, literally and figuratively. Literally because without labour money is worthless. Figuratively because they run the world whereas those who labour live horribly compared to them.

>>22595360
?? They do though, at least the smaller businesses I've worked with
And everyone knows that when you buy something, its manufacturing cost was 99% lower. Humans are literally fine with it, if the product is good. Are you a NEET?

>>22595360
because the real value of a good is how many units of some other good it is equal to. this has likely been said already.

>>22595376
Usury for sure is unnatural (oy vey), however advising is labor as well. Are coaches not doing any labor? Are teachers?
You could say no of course but this wouldn't make it any less valuable and humans would still pay for it.

>>22595349
The point of finance is that you still have your £10 to swap for someone elses £10, and you aren't swapping your £10 for someone else's £5. This concept will exist outside of the use of money, just money makes it 1000000% easier to track. It seems like you're taking investments in the sense of stock markets & capital gains and applying it to the entire profession.

Let's put it this way, since you see money as a way to fund labour (which isn't incorrect). If labour is the muscle of the business, then money is the blood and Finance is the heart. Finance is about making sure you have enough blood in your muscles to work, and this would exist outside of capitalism. If you were a socialist business, you would still need an accountant to make sure that you are valuing your labour correctly, and not giving away your products for less than they are worth.

Where we disagree is that I think there is more to a product than labour, as I've mentioned before about capital ownership & is ignored.

>>22595378
point: the cost to produce an iphone is irrelevant because apple is not competing with with their material suppliers. they are competing with android. so, they don't want to sell a phone for 200% of their labour cost, they want to sell two apple phones for the cost of three android phones.

>>22595377
My first ever job was at a restaurant where they told me they'd fire me if I revealed that the meals they sold for $11+ were made for $1.50.

>>22595376
WRONG!
Loans exist so that people who can't afford to get a hold of materials required to use labour to produce goods are able to do so, without stealing it.
Interest is their reward for giving people that money, with no guarantee they will ever pay it back.

Arabs didn't do interest because they had community and could rely on those they lended to, else those people be punished socially.
But Jews had left their communities and were in foreign lands, and so needed a reward for their risk

>>22595131
Political action based on this theory cannot be enacted in real life, and all countries who do that collapse or are overtaken internally by other factions. It makes sense only from a very selfish perspective, not a civilized one.
>Fuck you pay me what I am owed!
>The cost of living in this society is subtracted. Leave if you don't like it.
That being said Capitalism is gay and failed. But Marxism is fantasy and always defeated by more functional systems.

Marx was correct if we are talking about hermits. Then sure you can have true communism.

>>22595434
Sounds like a cucked country, not my problem tho
It makes sense from a PR perspective though, the customer views the food as cheap and thus shit quality and will leave a bad review. you're basically telling them that the food is crap
Interestingly enough might have taken the same amount of labor though. but the year and seed were worse. Does it have the same nutritional value? It has the same labor value that's for sure, perhaps more.

>>22595387
>advising is labor as well.
I'm saying productivity can only be achieved through labour. If advising is labour it means it has the potential to be productive.
>>22595436
>afford
Again, this doesn't mean anything.

Money is only worth something because it is backed by labour. People will labour for it. If people wouldn't labour for money, then it would be completely worthless.

Money in itself is worth nothing. People can use gold for decorations, but nobody cares about it that much. They only care that it can incite labour.

Loaning money is not productive.

>>22595434
let me guess, you actually know what's in the food

>>22595434
You're literally just factoring in the cost of raw materials.

NO SHOT it's 1.50 if you factor in the wages, insurance, rent, utilities. Unless you're chugging out 1000s of dishes a day.

>>22595457
loaning money produces opportunities for the people who took the loan. it is therefore productive.

>>22595469
It doesn't produce anything. It is a ticket which allows one into the theme park. The ticket does not produce the fun, the rides do.

Someone who sits on his ass collecting rent, or interest, or capital gains, is simply not producing anything, but is rather a parasite.

It's quite simple actually.

>>22595460
Also taxes. A lot of the profit just goes to the state.

>ctrl-f socially necessary labour time
>0
So this is the power of il/lit/erates?

>>22595474
yes, most societies run without everyone producing something. is that bad?

>>22595457
Money is worth something only because it can be exchanged for goods & services, yes. I don't disagree, but we have an agreement as a society that if you give me money, I will work, because someone else will work for that money when I give it to them. And so, money has worth because we give it.

You are shitting on money, without providing anything close to an alternative for it. Trading goods for goods (or labour for labour) is extremely inefficient, if you want to argue for that we can but you're going to give yourself away as someone who has never been in a remotely important business position, which you have already tbf.

>>22595484
>it was fucking lit
but it ruined those countries? they only ever recovered under fascism, nationalism and oligarchy
that image makes sense only if communism is treated like a religion.

>>22595474
>Renting
Provides housing without someone needing to put up a 5-10% deposit which they can't get, nor the risk of defaulting & losing all of that. Most landlords are responsible for utilities & maintenance also, but UK laws are better than yours.
>Interest
Reward for providing capital to someone who can't raise it themselves
>Capital gains
Honestly I'd agree with you there, it's mostly speculation. But capital gains do fund a lot of people's pensions.

>>22595189
Why would anyone in such a state produce anything? If I have to expend X amount of effort to gain X amount of returns, I'm playing a zero sum game and slowly dying. Any sort of constructive action thus becomes meaningless. More importantly, you are wrong with your naturalistic fallacy - in a "natural" world the strong have no reason not to exploit the weak. If I can bludgeon you over the head and take all your shit, I've gained a lot for a little effort. Nothing complex and grand can arise in a natural world, just a bunch of niggers bludgeoning each other over the head.

>>22595138
KEK

>>22595512
Hey now, you're asking from Marxists something they can't do: create a functional society

>>22595484
All those countries charged excess than the labour used to produce something and traded it overseas for much more KEK
Marxism is just proto-Capitalism.

>>22595475
Taxes aren't considered for a corporation when you're talking about how much it costs to produce something unless you're talking VAT on materials purchased.

The fact that you're saying "*profit* goes to the state" means that. You pay corp taxes on profit; Profit = Revenue (what they pay) - Cost (what you pay).

If you're self-employed that's different and it's paid on your income.

>>22595484
For real. I generally consider this board to be above the average intelligence of the internet but multiple people have unironically used the "Mudpie" argument.
How can they believe that such a famous theory could be disproven by such a dumb argument

>>22595565
>How can they believe that such a famous theory could be disproven by such a dumb argument
Communism is driven by emotion and anti-white hatred. It is disproved* by going outside and enjoying the breeze. It is only by riding the current and white hatred that communists are allowed to exist today.

>>22595565
Or the "shit pasta sauce", making pasta sauce out of feces. I never understood how these brainlets thought that the labour that is required for that actually makes it valuable when it's literal shit with salt and pepper.

>>22595584
Arent most commies white? Nigs and browns are nazbols and simp for china which is natsoc/fascist. Or they use it to justify racial supremacism. Only whites fall for actual marxism

>>22595565
i dig hole and hole have no value ltv wrong!! heeehee marx so dumb dumb!!

>another commietranny thread

>>22595603
Well
Does the hole have any fixed value equivalent to the labour that went into it?

>>22595565
It was already disproven by actual economists, we're just shitting on you because it's funny.

>>22595492
Why are you taking a meme seriously

>>22595615
yeah sure buddy

>>22595511
The point is money and capital shouldn’t exist think outside the box

>>22595131
why do brainlets always argue about labor theory of value? I don't understand it. It's the least interesting thing ever

>>22595674
>100+ year old theory
>Never applied successfully

Communistbros.. it's not looking good...

>>22595675
I gave reasons why they should, and you don't even have arguments anymore; just mindless hippyisms. Stay in school, folks!

>>22595678
Marx' LTV is an explanation of capitalist production not a model to shape society after, but thanks for removing any doubt that you're genuine retard and instead of a pretend one.

>>22595565
You can’t quantify labour

You can’t quantify what’s “socially necessary”

Might as well say value is very good labour that aims at happiness or some other vague concept

Get a grip

>>22595686
No. LTV describes how Marxists value goods & services as the labor required for their production. Capitalist production values them as higher than just that, hence this entire thread.

>>22595674
What's with your sarcastic tone, buddy? Are you perhaps denying something that's true?

>>22595716
Kek you really are a special little retard. Please dig a hole for yourself.

>>22595716
Commies don't even know their own theories, sad!

>>22595131
You can put great labor into something pretty stupid and useless. Look at what your mom did, for example

>>22595189
>All this extra stuff -- finance, ownership titles, shareholding -- are mere abstractions.
No, they're not. They all have their uses

>>22595725
0 arguments left. lol embarrassing
You'd think you could at least google something before you try talking about it

Haven't really got into commie stuff but reading from this thread yes, money is man-made therefore useless and it's only the labour that counts. So landlords are indeed parasites of society and a mcDonald's wagie is more valuable to society because his labor mogs the landlords collecting rent. this motivated me actually.

>>22595767
I wish the world was as simple as your tiny brain made it out to be.

>>22595741
>Volume 1 Book One: The Process of Production of Capital

>>22595131
What every criticism of the labor theory of value misses is that Marx explicitly states that it is in conjunction with a market system. Things of value take a certain average amount of labor to be procured. Thus, the true value of anything is the average value it takes for that thing to be brought to market. If you can't at least recognize why this might be a useful way to think about values and prices, you simply do not understand economics.

>>22595131
the value is determined by the seller’s ability to convince you to buy something at an arbitrary price and the buyer’s willingness to buy something at said bullshit price. if the buyer is took weak to get the price to go down through his means then the seller prevails over the buyer and the buyer is forced to buy at that price. labor isn’t valuable in itself.

>>22595131 (OP)
What every criticism of the labor theory of value misses is that Marx explicitly states that it is in conjunction with a market system. Things of value take a certain average amount of labor to be procured. Thus, the true value of anything is the average labor it takes for that thing to be brought to market. If you can't at least recognize why this might be a useful way to think about values and prices, you simply do not understand economics.

>>22595131
the value is determined by the seller’s ability to convince you to buy at the arbitrary price he set. if you lack the means to get the seller to back off his price then the seller prevails and you buy at his price. if you have the means to change the price, say through robbery or coercion, then you prevail over the seller and the price goes down. labor isn’t valuable in itself.

>>22595808
The prices being set arbitrarily high can only be sustained through monopolistic power, otherwise they would be undercut by competitors. If you look at the majority of sellers today, they are all incorporated under the umbrella of a few corporations, and then those corporations are in turn owned by Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street. And I mean all three usually own sizeable stakes of the corporations, meaning supposed competitors are actually owned by the same groups, thus the prices are set by the same owners, and a monopoly is formed with the facade of competition from different branches of the same pool of ownership.

>>22595824
This reply is meant for this post >>22595824

>>22595834
yes, when a group of people have power over others then they can set the price at whatever they want and those without power will be forced to buy at that price.

This is so retarded.

>>22595834
This reply is meant for this post>>22595824

>>22595842
This is why those with no power who are forced to buy at monopoly prices should join their forces in the mutually beneficial goal of destroying the malicious centers of capital who are exploiting the disparity in power to extract higher prices out of them.

>>22595238
>A capitalist would love to sell you a piece of bread for a million dollars. But he knows there are people undercutting him.
And a buyer would like to get it for free, but he knows there are buyers who are willing to pay more than free.

>>22595131
>get better tools for my job
>my job is now a bit easier and takes less time
>therefore it's worth less

>>22595189
Those "abstractions" are born from the simple fact that no one place in the world has every resource and thus an entire class of people was created to carry shit from one place to another and trade for other shit and then carry that other shit back.

>>22595716
>>22595686
LTV was literally just a neoclassical model that got thrown out when economists figured out it was nonsensical much like most economic models from the time but for some reason it's kept alive in marxism because communists still take marx's word as gospel.

>>22595843
>depends upon the amount of that social substance in it
How did anyone ever take this shit seriously?

>>22595484
>PLA
>Japanese invaders
absolute nonsense the communists were killling the nationalists who were actually fighting the japanese invasion
ccp are full of shit

>>22596043
>Meanwhile Amazon dumps everything in a landfill rather than lower prices

>>22596081
Marx's didn't have a 'model' and neither did Ricardo for that matter.

>>22595138
>>22595148
Skill is part of mental effort.

>>22596065
Unironically how it works.

>>22595824
>the value is determined by the seller’s ability
>labor isn’t valuable in itself
Why are trading commodities then?

>>22596065
>get better tools (AI) for your job (art)
>your job is now a bit easier and takes less time
>suddenly not as many people purchasing from you

>>22595131
>How is this wrong?
1. The second transformation (production prices to market prices) is problematic -> real world does not conform to market equilibrium -> no explanation of real world prices -> useless theory
2. The first transformation (labor to production prices) is mathematically erroneous -> Bortkiewicz's transformation problem (Marx converts surplus value counted in labour time into profits counted in prices, but does not do the same for constant and variable capital) -> when fixed, no tendency for the rate of profit to equalize across the economy
3. joint production problem (pic related) (it also renders marx susceptible to the very same Sraffa's Cambridge Controversy critique, which revealed neoclassical economics methodology as fraud)
4. unit of value problem (why *only* labour?)
5. productivity definition problem (how the fuck to objectively differentiate social necessity in socially necessary abstract labour hours?)
6. finance ('fictitious capital') problem -> credit, investment, insurance, advertising, etc. clearly play a huge role, redistributing and reshaping everything across sectors, yet marxoids just ignore them.
7. government role problem -> laws, healthcare, school education are important, yet we are to pretend that they don't affect shit.
7. single commodity problem -> is a car produced in 1970s and a car produced in 1980s (with slight alterations) the same commodity or different ones? -> different knowledge, different production process, etc.
8. average socially necessary abstract labor time measuring problem

>>22596744
>>honor isn’t valuable in itself

>>22595474
>Someone who sits on his ass collecting rent, or interest, or capital gains, is simply not producing anything, but is rather a parasite.
Yet remove a creditor/investor/parasite/etc. from the equation, and suddenly there is too much uncertainty in the world to produce anything. And thus nobody produces anything anymore.

>>22595131
>a guy spends his days polishing turds
>his polished turds have value because... THEY JUST DO OKAY?

>>22595131

It is wrong since that which value pertains to, human life, is absolutely worthless. Therefore, any and all commodities are likewise absolutely worthless.

>>22597318
>>his polished turds have value because... THEY JUST DO OKAY?
To be fair, Marx differentiated between productive and unproductive labor. Social necessity. Only productive labor generates surplus. So, Marx is not as dumb as you think.

On the other hand, the exact method of such differentiation proposed is dubious and problematic.

>>22597329
>On the other hand, the exact method of such differentiation proposed is dubious and problematic.
realisation by sale on the market? Not particularly problematic.

>>22597352
>realisation by sale on the market?
circularity

What is productive labor? The labor that generates surplus.
What is surplus? It's, err, the thing produced by productive labor.

>>22597361
Read the introduction to Cleaver's _Reading Capital Politically_ on Capital as an attempt to contribute to the historical transcendence of capitalism, and as Capital as an analysis of the conjuctures of the breakdown of capitalism.

You're arguing Marx was trying to analyse capital as a stable system, not as a structure of crisis.

Realisation crises from overproduction, or labour revaluation happen continuously as political acts.

>Circularity is a problem in a historical argument
Now who's being naïve?

>>22597368
>>Circularity is a problem in a historical argument
>Now who's being naïve?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem–Quine_thesis

1. First impose an imaginary thingamabob.
2. Then start reshuffling everything to defend that thingamabob, at the cost of convenience and sanity.

>You're arguing Marx was trying to analyse capital as a stable system
Marx was trying to fit his 'scientific socialism' into his contemporary scientific paradigm. Which in the 19th century did not deal with dynamic processes. The only analytical methodological apparatus he had at hand was static. And dialectics ain't no Chaos Theory.

>Realisation crises from overproduction
We have problems in defining what production is.
Do we produce "flowers" or some specific "Mexican flowers"? Is a helicopter trip across the continent warranted? Does it produce or consume the surplus?

>>22595131
>stops you from drinking from the river
how much would you pay for that water?
yeah, you're a fuckwad dipshit like most commies

>>22595189
I jack off very frequently and laboriously, yet there is no value created. it's strange

>>22595189
>When society reaches the point where the "price" at which you "buy" something is the same "price" at which it was produced, ie. in terms of labour, then we are on the way to a much more natural state of affairs.

Not really. The price entails more than just labor, like needing to cover cost of materials and equipment or other expenses external to labor.

>>22597214
>1. no explanation of real world prices -> useless theory
black and white fallacy. no theory can explain actual market prices to a T because they're driven by a great amount of contingent factors. but that doesn't mean the basis and the social signification of those prices can't be explained.
>2. Bortkiewicz's transformation problem (Marx converts surplus value counted in labour time into profits counted in prices, but does not do the same for constant and variable capital
and? his point in the conversion is illustrating that capitalism requires correspondence between VALUE expended by the producer (constant and variable capital) and the PRICES collected by him (profits). so it makes perfect sense why in his illustration profits are expressed in terms of prices and the outlay in terms of value.
>3. joint production problem (pic related)
...is what happens when you think abstractions override the real world. the thing that guarantees the values of products are never negative is the fact that the concept of a thing taking negative productive labour to produce is a logical contradiction. if your math leads to a contradiction, that's a sign that your mathematical abstraction has detached itself from the real world and can no longer prove anything about it.
>4. unit of value problem (why *only* labour?)
because value is a social relation between independent producers engaging in division of labour. the entire point of commodity exchange is division of labour. what else?
>5. how the fuck to objectively differentiate social necessity in socially necessary abstract labour hours?
by obtaining average technological level and the average work intensity and seeing the output
>6. finance ('fictitious capital') problem -> credit, investment, insurance, advertising, etc. clearly play a huge role, redistributing and reshaping everything across sectors, yet marxoids just ignore them.
lol retard https://en.gegenstandpunkt.com/books/finance-capital-2nd-revised-edition
>7. government role problem -> laws, healthcare, school education are important, yet we are to pretend that they don't affect shit.
lol ultraretard
https://en.gegenstandpunkt.com/books/democratic-state
https://antinational.org/en/inflation/
>8. is a car produced in 1970s and a car produced in 1980s (with slight alterations) the same commodity or different ones?
continuum fallacy
>9. average socially necessary abstract labor time measuring problem
...is not a problem for anyone. the only reason the capitalist economy is functioning right now is because people measure snlt using their money all the time

>>22595210
>the dominant males and families eat more than those who hunted more.
do you know what hunter gatherer societies were?

>>22597464
>no theory can explain actual market prices
Yet, Marx prided his own theory to be objective compared to the rest of the economists. "Scientific socialism". Now it turns out, that his guess is (at best) as good as any other.

>that capitalism requires correspondence between VALUE
Once you fix the transformation problem, there is no correspondence between value and prices. There is no tendency of the rates of profit to fall. Meaning, marxian values are useless. They don't do shit.

>if your math leads to a contradiction, that's a sign that your mathematical abstraction has detached itself from the real world
Yes. It's called "proof by contradiction". That's how it just proved that marxism is wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

>because value is a social relation
>what else?
EVERYTHING ELSE. Pic related.

>by obtaining average technological level and the average work intensity and seeing the output
No >>22597361
>lol retard
Finance is unproductive, retard. We are supposed to pretend that fictitious capital generates no surplus, retard.
Yet, lack of insurance (unproductive labor, according to Marx) is why prehistorical Australians reverted back from agriculture to hunting-gathering. No 'parasitic' insurance, no surplus, capiche?
Which means it is productive, yet that would devastate the whole fucking theory.

>lol ultraretard
"Finally, we should consider, if only briefly, the meaning of *non*-capitalist production. Recall that, according to Marx, labour can be productive only if it is controlled by capitalists. It must be ‘directly consumed in the course of production for the valorization of capital’ – that is, tied to capital through the wage contract (Marx 1864: 1038). The problem is that, even if we accept that capitalist control is a prerequisite for the creation of value, it is not clear why the only gauge for such control is the wage contract."
"To clarify the difficulty, consider LockheedMartin, one of the world’s largest military contractors. The owners of LockheedMartin certainly control the work performed by their employees. But don’t they also have some impact on the work performed at the U.S. Defense Department, with obvious bearings on their own business? The latter impact may be indirect, but is it smaller than the former? Similarly with the US government. The government controls the employees of its own Defense Department, but doesn’t it also control to some extent, through its laws and procurement policies, the employees of LockheedMartin?"
"The answers to these questions are crucial for the computation of labour values. For, if we accept that government workers are controlled by capitalists at least to some degree, we can no longer treat such workers as unproductive. And likewise, but in reverse, with privately employed workers: if we concede that they are not entirely controlled by capitalists, perhaps we should no longer treat them as strictly productive."

>>22597464
>continuum fallacy
Which is precisely why marxism is wrong, simpleton.
>>22597393
>Do we produce "flowers" or some specific "Mexican flowers"? Is a helicopter trip across the continent warranted? Does it produce or consume the surplus?

You cannot generate and consume the surplus at the same time, can you?


>...is not a problem for anyone.
only for the theory. Which necessitates Socially Necessary Abstract Labor Hours, yet cannot prove they exist.
And - (unlike physics with their invisible atoms/electrons/neutrino!) - it is also empirically unreliable and unstable as fuck.
1 Joule is always 1 Joule.
But what the fuck is 1 Socially Necessary Abstract Labor Hour?

>>22597464
>by obtaining average technological level and the average work intensity and seeing the output
How do you measure output?

>>22597570
>Which is precisely why marxism is wrong, simpleton.
no, it's precisely why being unable to define strict boundaries between types of commodities isn't a problem for Marxism, because in real life they're already diffuse, so their theoretical reflection will necessarily be diffuse too, simpleton
>>22597570
>Which necessitates Socially Necessary Abstract Labor Hours, yet cannot prove they exist.
that they exist is proven by the fact that capitalists are driven to minimize their costs, which means that in general they won't use more labour-power than they need to make their products. and the amount of labour-power they will tend to use given those conditions is what constitutes the socially necessary average labour time.
>1 Joule is always 1 Joule. But what the fuck is 1 Socially Necessary Abstract Labor Hour?
another instance of a black and white fallacy. that the science of complex social processes can't have results of equal form and precision as the science of simple laws of physical movement of bodies is not a proof that the former is false.
that's like dismissing basic historical facts because an "empire" is a more diffuse concept than a "joule" and because an empire can't be measured in a lab. it's something 110 iq stemtards resort to when they run out of actual arguments
>>22597602
in terms of units of the given commodity. your pic reveals that your mistake is in trying to conceive the social process metaphysically. what counts as output is determined by the individuals partaking in the social relations that constitute the production process. it's not some metaphysical feature which would exists in abstraction from that.

>>22595484
>"Nooooooo you can't own more than 8 acres of land! Killing Kulaks is justified!!"
>pic related are 10 acres
>in a country like Russia

Communists are mentally ill and a cancer of society.

>>22597725
>isn't a problem for Marxism, because in real life they're already diffuse
It is a problem, because you can't measure your own surplus, clown.
Because depending on *subjective perspective*, you either get your surplus rise or decrease. Meaning, your theory is invalid.

>is proven by the fact that capitalists are driven to minimize their costs,
and mainstream economics is proven by the fact that customers are driven to seek pleasure and minimize their pain. Oh, wait.

>that the science of complex social processes can't have results of equal form and precision as the science of simple laws of physical movement
no-no-no, of course not. But where is your Marx and where are nonlinear differential equations? There is NOTHING SIMPLE in physical movement. (pic related)

>that's like dismissing basic historical facts because an "empire" is a more diffuse concept than a "joule"
In other words: "all that labor theory calculations are shit, pay attention to the historical facts. Our Messiah cannot be wrong here, yes-yes!"

>dismissing basic historical facts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
retard

>because an empire can't be measured in a lab
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_dynamics#Dynamic_simulation_results
Again, there are ways to work around that limitation. But I do not see them in Marx.

>what counts as output is determined by the individuals
I determined that your mom is a whore. Therefore, she is.
>it's not some metaphysical feature
intentionalism IS metaphysics.

>>22597464
>...is what happens when you think abstractions override the real world. the thing that guarantees the values of products are never negative is the fact that the concept of a thing taking negative productive labour to produce is a logical contradiction.

You've never had to undo the shit of a lazy/useless coworker I suppose. This dude in my company set us in value -30 and we were in 0 before, allegorically.

>>22597551
>Now it turns out, that his guess is (at best) as good as any other.
no, it turns out better because he has corrected various mistakes of the economists
>Once you fix the transformation problem, there is no correspondence between value and prices.
there's no transformation problem. and the correspondence exists because otherwise capitalist wouldn't be able to function. the capitalists must on average command enough labour to reproduce their product, otherwise nobody would invest in production.
>Yes. It's called "proof by contradiction". That's how it just proved that marxism is wrong.
no, it proved that your retarded mathematical abstraction has been misapplied
>EVERYTHING ELSE. Pic related.
like what? speak in your own words instead of posting some tangentially related shit. I'm not here to decipher your intentions. state your objection to what I said clearly or fuck off
>No >>22597361
how does that relate to what I said?
>Which means it is productive
no, it only means that it's necessary to ensure other productive activity in given circumstances. it doesn't mean that it is itself productive.
insurance is productive for the insurance capitalist because it yields him profit, but it's unproductive for social capital as a whole because people don't produce insurance for its own sake. from the standpoint of social capital, insurance is only there to cover losses, not to produce a surplus.
>The answers to these questions are crucial for the computation of labour values. For, if we accept that government workers are controlled by capitalists at least to some degree, we can no longer treat such workers as unproductive. And likewise, but in reverse, with privately employed workers: if we concede that they are not entirely controlled by capitalists, perhaps we should no longer treat them as strictly productive
this is completely wrong. the state can productive labour and private capitalists can employ unproductive labour. whoever wrote that hasn't read Marx

>>22597781
>It is a problem, because you can't measure your own surplus
what the fuck does it even mean to "measure my own suprlus"? capitalists calculate profit over expense, and that's enough.
>depending on *subjective perspective*, you either get your surplus rise or decrease.
it's not subjective perspective but social perspective. obviously production is determined socially. you're the only one trying to inject metaphysics, so don't pretend that you failing to do so is someone else's failure,.
>and mainstream economics is proven by the fact that customers are driven to seek pleasure and minimize their pain.
how so?
>But where is your Marx and where are nonlinear differential equations?
what are you even asking? your math fetish isn't an argument
>There is NOTHING SIMPLE in physical movement.
you can isolate movements, describe them using simple laws and test them in a lab in a way you can't do with human society.
>In other words
no, that's not what I said at all. try again
>retard
you don't need to sign your posts

>>22597800
>no, it turns out better because he has corrected various mistakes of the economists
I repeat >>22597214
both transformations are wrong (can't convert labor values into prices)
productive/unproductive labour is impossible to differentiate (can't measure surplus)
abstract labor hours are unmeasurable

Great correction! Totally not astrology.

>how does that relate to what I said?
productive/unproductive labour is impossible to differentiate.

>there's no transformation problem
You are not comprehending what you are being told? (pic related)
What part of "equations are half-baked" do you not understand?

>like what?
Like the whole fucking list of things on that pic.

>this is completely wrong
>whoever wrote that hasn't read Marx
>>"It must be ‘directly consumed in the course of production for the valorization of capital’ – that is, tied to capital through the wage contract (Marx 1864: 1038)"
it directly references Marx there, clown.

>>22597826
>both transformations are wrong (can't convert labor values into prices)
you don't need to
>productive/unproductive labour is impossible to differentiate (can't measure surplus)
based on the incorrect premise that the distinction is made according to some simplistic act of "measuring" surplus
>What part of "equations are half-baked" do you not understand?
what part of "the equations don't correspond to the thing they purport to describe" do you not understand?
>Like the whole fucking list of things on that pic.
give me two you like the most
>it directly references Marx there
all the wrong shit there doesn't follow at all from that reference to Marx. a state can employ workers in directly producing surplus value and a private enterprise can employ workers to provide necessary unproductive labour. so why is that moron assuming otherwise and then heroically debunking his own retarded assumption?

>>22597853
>a state can employ workers in directly producing surplus value

"Suppose the government decided to ‘go private’ and instead of financing water services out of taxes on surplus value, sold them for a fee with an eye to making a profit. In order to actually earn this profit, the government would need to either cut the wages paid to water-service employees or otherwise mark up the price of water above its wage cost (which for simplicity we assume to be the only cost). According to the classical Marxist scheme, the first option is impossible since water-service employees, like all workers, are already paid their own value, so any reduction here will push their wages below subsistence. The only avenue therefore is to make the fee (price) higher than the wages."

"And here arises the puzzle. The shift from free to fee-based water services alters neither the use value of these services nor the labour producing them, which in turn means that, on its own, the redesignation of these services can create no surplus value. So where does the government profit come from?"

"One possible source is lower real wages elsewhere in the economy, as workers bear the brunt of the new fees (since consumer prices rise but wages do not). The problem is that such a decline would push these wages below subsistence, again violating the Marxist assumption that workers are always paid their value. The only route is for capitalists to allow overall wages to rise by the difference between the new fees and old taxes, and accept the consequent decline (of an equal amount) in their own profit."

"Yet this possibility does not solve the puzzle either. Although the government now acts as a productive, profit-making capitalist for all intents and purposes, its workers are *not* productive of surplus value! Instead, they merely help their employer – in this case, the government – scoop up part of the surplus value produced by capitalists elsewhere in the economy."

>>22597406
>nigger creates artificial scarcity
EVERY
FUCKING
TIME

>>22597883
The final form of Capitalism is a giant jew nigger tranny sponsored by Amazon to shart up the planet's entire atmosphere with it's axe wound rot gasses and only stops if the whole planet pays a subscription (includes the jab, cranial microchip and targeted advertizement).

All of this word salad won't make gommunism work.

>>22597922
Point being that capitalism doesn't work for shit neither, so there's not much to lose exactly.

>>22597937
>Point being that capitalism doesn't work for shit neither
And they don't work for the very same reasons >>22597214 (pic there)

Capital is not an objective thing.

>>22597937
Uh, it works far better than gommunism for sure. Cold war proved it. China understood it. Commies are behind the times. Their dream was over before it even began.

>>22597952
You already got BTFO here >>22597464 I can read the thread.

>>22597960
>Cold war proved it. China understood it.
>Reagan America and CCP China are both exactly the same thing - Capitalist states
Brutal redpill

>>22597971
>Capitalism "works" as a speculative market and currency manipulation grift dominated by a single entity that shoots you and puts your family in a gulag if you are not a good goy
Freemarketsisters, our responce?

>>22597966
>I can read the thread.
But apparently very selectively. Or maybe your IQ score is just not high enough.

>>22597464
>>3. joint production problem
>>22597551
>It's called "proof by contradiction

>>22597960
>Uh, it works far better than gommunism for sure
As a theory, neither mainstream neoclassical economics nor marxism make sense.
Which means, that whatever is unravelling, happens irrespective of your political regime labels.

And as a practice, "communism" is just an over-sized monopoly.
And it's not like *you* are not being ruled by ones right now.
In other words, it is merely a question of cybernetical feedback loops.

>>22597989
>And as a practice, "communism" is just an over-sized monopoly.
The oversized monopoly is not meant to be productive or efficient, Marx recognizes this - Dictatorship of Proletariat exists for the sole purpose of unmaking the ruling class and it's isntitutions of power.

>>22597871
>In order to actually earn this profit, the government would need to either cut the wages paid to water-service employees or otherwise mark up the price of water above its wage cost
this is an incorrect assumption. the state is already in competition with capitalists for labour power, so the state employees tend to already be paid such wages that when producing for profit, there'd be profit over the wages. or in other words, they already provide surplus labour.
the state is already driven to cut its wage expenses outside of capitalist competition. that's because the final effect of those expenses is already the same as with wage expenses of private enterprises: they are a deduction from profits of capital.
>According to the classical Marxist scheme, the first option is impossible since water-service employees, like all workers, are already paid their own value, so any reduction here will push their wages below subsistence.
wrong on two counts:
1. "DEPRESSION OF WAGES BELOW THE VALUE OF LABOUR-POWER" is possible -- this is in all caps because I literally copied it from a heading in vol. 3 of Capital.
2. the value of labour power isn't necessarily equal to mere subsistence. the moral-historical component of the value of labour power shifts as a result of class struggle. meaning the workers can dictate the costs of their reproduction to the extent they have the bargaining power. if the worker is able to forcefully refuse to be a worker below X, then X becomes the lower bound for the cost of reproduction of a worker, because the concept of a worker includes that he must be willing to work.
so we aren't talking about mere subsistence level. if the power of the capitalist class increases in relation to that of the proletariat, they can push the value of the labour power from X to X-1. and this can also be done with through the capitalist state cutting its services and demanding payment from them without forcing the capitalists to raise wages to compensate.
>And here arises the puzzle. The shift from free to fee-based water services alters neither the use value of these services nor the labour producing them, which in turn means that, on its own, the redesignation of these services can create no surplus value. So where does the government profit come from?
the shift alters the social relation.
before the shift, the surplus labour of the workers effects a reduction in the reduction (sic) of the profits of the taxed capitalists. so the effect of their labour doesn't appear directly as surplus value, but only saves the capitalists on unproductive expenses which cut into their profits.
after the shit, the workers create commodities, so their surplus labour now instead appears in the form of surplus value produced by them.
so they do create surplus value and that's where the profit comes from: the shift from the labour effecting a mere deduction in expense to the labour effecting an extra commodity that enters the market and thus has value.

>>22597871
>Suppose the government decided to ‘go private’ and instead of financing water services out of taxes on surplus value, sold them for a fee with an eye to making a profit. In order to actually
Bruh you ever heard of this thing called "state corporations"?

>>22597971
CPP China was a maoist shithole before Deng saved country's sorry ass from dying out. USSR actually died out because they were too arrogant.

>>22598009
>Reagan America and the current CCP China are exactly the same
I heard your argument the first time

>>22598011
Uh, ok? Is that supposed to be bad? Do you prefer Maoist shithole?

>>22598018
The point here is in the question: are any of those entities operate on free market economy?

>>22595824
>the value is determined by the seller’s ability to convince you to buy at the arbitrary price he set.
He was trying to determine what the price fluctuates around when supply and demand are equal, and no other distortions like patents or branding affect the price. The distinction between value and price isn't arbitrary or subjective in this theory

>>22595131
>how is this wrong
People pay hundreds of dollars for Nikes which are produced for slave labour at $0.05 each. The value of anything is the maximum amount you can convince people to pay and it just so happens that people are worthless braindead garbage gullible enough to pay a kidney for trash so long as you market enough.

>>22595688
In an abstract sense you can. The average amount of labour hours required to produce a product is what qualifies as socially neccessary, not that hard was it?

>>22598246
Why do people pay so much money for these shoes? Marketing. I'll assume you're reffering to Nike Jordans since they are the most popular overpriced shoes from Nike. -
They had to pay for athletes to wear and endorse them, all the ads needed to create the brand image, etc...
Futhermore you drastically understimate the actual price to produce a pair pf nikes, they cost roughly 35 dollars from beggining to end.

>>22598063
Marx states several times the theory accounts for demand and supply. Demand is in large determined by branding. He was right back then, but modern branding has become a different beast, the theory can't hold up anymore

>>22598328
>[...]so long as you market enough
>Why do people pay so much money for these shoes? Marketing.
If you ever come across anyone calling you a retard, you should know that they're extremely trustworthy, as they're the only people out there willing to tell you the truth.

>>22597393
>Which in the 19th century did not deal with dynamic processes.
>I know nothing about Hegel.

Thanks for playing now fuck off.

>>22598343
You gonna explain how im wrong or just cry like a little baby? You realize an insult only has weight if you disprove me and then call me a retard

>>22598388
how does something as retarded as you make it this far in life without drowning in a soup spoon or some shit?

>>22598397
Still waiting for you to critique my position little angry man

>>22598412
>the reason is marketing
>UHHH ACTUALLY DID YOU KNOW THE REASON IS MARKETING?
Is your position being a fucking idiot? The laughing stock of the retard village? Because if so I have no counter argument. You are about as retarded as retarded gets. To call you a shit-for-brains would be an overvaluation of your cranial real estate.

>>22598412
>little angry man
Reichian spotted. Have you accumulated today?

>>22595189
You don't get it, adding labour and materials to something can make it LESS valuable, something nobody wants is utterly worthless even if millions of man hours went into it.

Bringing up finance and other unrelated stuff for no reason means you're either stupid or deliberately trying to confuse the debate.

>>22598506
Lmao I wasn't even thinking of reich but thats pretty funny

>>22598418
Having this much anger isn't healthy. What are you repressing? what is causing this pathological anger?

>>22598599
You had it pointed out to you (a second time, you were too fucking stupid and stubborn to pick up and backtrack a few posts the first time around) and you're still going, but you have nothing. This is just pathetic. I feel sorry for your wrangler.

>>22598246
>People pay hundreds of dollars for Nikes which are produced for slave labour at $0.05 each.
they aren't produced by slave labour at $0.05 each. there are inputs which cost much more than that to produce such as the materials and the machines, and there's also expensive productive labour on the Western side dealing with transport etc. that comes into the value of the shoe.
>>22598338
why not?
>>22598539
>adding labour and materials to something can make it LESS valuable
show me a single store selling a mass commodity that is being made less valuable by applying extra labour and materials. I'll wait

>>22598603
I keep going because its fun to laugh at the dumb person with anger issues. I'm clearly far above you in intelligence considering you can't even attempt to critique my position.
You might think you're just above me, but no it's your subconscious realizing you're a moron and trying to defend you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Buf9Y2xt_c

*completes marx*

>>22598658
Spirits just flew over my house…

>>22595131
Where is the account for cost/scarcity of materials? How about the organisational costs? Not everybody has the ability to be a bureaucrat whether you like it or not

>>22598303
>The average amount of labour hours required to produce a product is what qualifies as socially neccessary
Retard.

>>22598790
its implicit in their statement that commodities are realised as realisation is an essential part of the commodity which precedes the aliquot instance of general social labour power.

They're a retard because they're debating you

>>22598803
No, you're wrong and no amount of fancy words will be able to hide your ESLtardation.

>realised

>>22598820
This is what happens when communism becomes an aesthetic. Man... the spectacle, sign economy or whatever those postmodernists wanted to call it but it has really pacified communism into a depressing shell of itself

>>22598869
No that's unironically how Marx imagined communist society to look like. It's the Soviets and other real world movements that deviated from Marx' vision.

>>22598876
He did express a similar view early on in his career, with that famous "hunting in the morning..." quote from the german ideology, but he moved away from this idealism later on in his life

>>22598246
>Price is value
Every friggin time. This is speculation economy does to a mf.

>>22598787
>Where is the account for cost/scarcity of materials? How about the organisational costs?
They are in, since those are also forms of labor requirement.

>Not everybody has the ability to be a bureaucrat whether you like it or not
Yes and?

>>22598820
good lord this is the most pathetic thing i've seen this week and i hang out on 4chan

>>22598820
These people are faggots, but the implication is kinda gay
>it's not an ACTUAL economy unless you're doing 9 to 6 plus overtime doing website SEO in a shitty office cubicle or spraying hypoallergenic finish on vegan iButt Plugs
It's like suffering is implied to be necessary for productivity.

>"no I mean real productive stuff"
From the POV of a XV century serf nobody ITT is doing anything useful since none of us are tilling soil for a living. And the vast majority of modern economic activity is objectively, factually unnecessary for anyone's survival, health, or well-being - it's only necessary for making kikes richer. One the key factors we use to determine "Developed Economies" is service economy taking the leading role from industry. The cum-guzzlers in the pic-related are a direct consequence of that. Only capitalism promotes straight up harmful services that are more speculatively profitable due to their exploitative nature, and neglects actually vital services - like providing those living sharts with school teachers who won't diddle them and thus preventing their trooning out. Or maybe providing the vital tradesmen who do the "actual jobs" with a livable wage.

>>22598303
So if it takes 10 hours to make a mudpie they're socially necessary now?

>>22595565
It's so odd, you seethe about the mudpie argument but it's never actually refuted.
>IT NEEDS TO BE SOCIALLY NECESSARY!
Who decides what's socially necessary, retard? If my mudpies aren't used by anyone in my city but in the next city over a church girl uses them for a puppet show for kids are they now necessary? If so this proves the subjective theory of value. If not, why not? The LTV is completely moronic

>>22599042
>Who decides what's socially necessary, retard?
Practice, duh, read the fucking book. Which does mean there is no theoretical definition for it. Bu there aren't any theoretical economies around either.

>>22599050
What the fuck are you talking about?

>>22599061
Das Capital?

>>22595131
Didn't the Nazis use this? Like X amount of "labor" equals X amount of Reichsmarks or something.

>>22599065
Well, yeah. The Nazis were socialists after all

>>22599061
Das Kapital?

>>22599065
Depending on what you mean by this - everyone used this. Hourly wage predates fixed salaries by a lot.

>>22599042
If it is bought and sold on the market then it has proven itself to be socially necessary.

>>22599074
Good work, we've proven that value is subjective

>>22599076
Sell me this shitpost of yours.

>>22599080
I hope commies never change. You've all got a special kind of retardation

>>22599095
Ah, so its not entirely subjective after all. Welp.

>>22599107

>>22599095
Projection from somebody who hasn't grasped the basics of either LTV or marginalism.

>>22599111
You're just not doing a very good job of arguing for this economic solipsism of yours.

>>22595131
>How is this wrong?

i'd tell you but i feel it would be wasted upon you.

>>22595172
>It's blatantly wrong.
>If I dig a massive hole in the ground for years, I have used a LOT of human labour. Yet that hole is completely worthless.

a hole isn't a commodity.

>>22595172
>For example, certain rich people eat meals with golden flakes on them, which are nutritionally worthless, just in order to flaunt their wealth. These meals can cost up to the thousands. As for myself, I wouldn't eat such a meal even if it were offered to me for free. Thus I value the meal negatively, would have to be paid to eat it, whereas those showy rich people value it in the thousands.


what does this have to do with the quote? you can obviously grant that gold has a market value, determined by demand and supply.

he's wrong of course. or rather, the quote doesn't amount to anything more than
> people have to work for things, and that takes effort
brilliant deduction, holmes. i wonder when this realization hit him?

>>22599157
cont.

though, i haven't read marx so it could make perfect sense in context. i don't know what to make of it as a quote though.

>>22595189
I just sold a cigarette for 2 dollars. I guess I'm a capitalist.

>>22598876
>No that's unironically how Marx imagined communist society to look like
the imaginary Marx in your head. here's what the real Marx wrote:
>We consider the tendency of modern industry to make children and juvenile persons of both sexes co-operate in the great work of social production, as a progressive, sound and legitimate tendency, although under capital it was distorted into an abomination. In a rational state of society every child whatever, from the age of 9 years, ought to become a productive labourer in the same way that no able-bodied adult person ought to be exempted from the general law of nature, viz.: to work in order to be able to eat, and work not only with the brain but with the hands too.

The Marxian definition of value is ridiculous. All the work one cares to add will not turn a mud pie into an apple tart; it remains a mud pie, value zero. By corollary, unskillful work can easily subtract value; an untalented cook can turn wholesome dough and fresh green apples, valuable already, into an inedible mess, value zero. Conversely, a great chef can fashion of those same materials a confection of greater value than a commonplace apple tart, with no more effort than an ordinary cook uses to prepare an ordinary sweet.
These kitchen illustrations demolish the Marxian theory of value -- the fallacy from which the entire magnificent fraud of communism derives -- and to illustrate the truth of the common-sense definition as measured in terms of use.
Nevertheless, the disheveled old mystic of Das Kapital, turgid, tortured, confused, and neurotic, unscientific, illogical, this pompous fraud Karl Marx, nevertheless had a glimmering of a very important truth. If he had possessed an analytical mind, he might have formulated the first adequate definition of value . . . and this planet might have been saved endless grief...

>>22595138
kek
Labour theory BTFO'd!

>>22599072
I don't mean hourly wage. I mean that I remember reading in Feder's book that they used "labor" as currency. Or maybe I'm just retarded and misremembering. The Nazis probably didn't even use Feder's ideas. I'll go look.
Ok, here it is:

>pag. 10: Through intensive enlightenment of the people, it is to be made clear to the people that money is and should be nothing other than a voucher for completed labor; that while every highly developed economy of course has need of money as a medium of exchange, the function of money also ends with that, and in no case should money be lent a supramundane power to grow of itself by means of interest, at the expense of productive labor.
>pag. 34: Aside from this financial consideration, the abolition of the interest-community will grant to productive labor in all fields of endeavor the priority that it deserves. Money is returned once again to the role appropriate to it, to be a servant in the powerful drive of our national economy. It will become again what it is, a voucher for completed labor, and therewith the path is cleared for a higher goal, for abstention from the raging money-lust of our age.
>pag. 40: These paragraphs demand the socialization of the entire monetary system. Money is only and exclusively a voucher for completed labor issued by a community that has its own state. To issue money-tokens is one of the sovereign fundamental rights of the state. The counterfeiting of the state's money-tokens is subject to the most severe punishments; thus it is a quite forceful social demand that the monetary system be placed under the control of the collectivity. The work-power of the collectivity is the sole substrate of money-tokens, and only the failure to appreciate this fundamental fact has led in general to the deterioration of our public finances and to complete anarchy of the monetary system in general.
>pag. 42: With regard to the devaluation of our money, which has resulted only through the enormous mass of our innumerable certificates of indebtedness, we demand a strongly graduated wealth-tax. We lay the emphasis in this on “strongly graduated.”
>A [flat] wealth-tax [for the purpose of] reduction of the number of notes and so forth would be nothing but a self-deception whereby one throws sand into the eyes of the people. For if I also confiscate half of all of the wealth everywhere and receive payment in bonds and pulp these, all that is really accomplished thereby is a diminution of the amount of paper, while in return a conversion-factor will increase the fictive value of the totality of circulating paper to the same level as before. Real value belongs always only to goods for consumption and goods for use, never to the paper vouchers for completed labor.

I just used CTRL+F to look for the word "labor" through the book. Its just 59 pages, but makes some pretty big and utopian promises. No clue if they're correct or just insanity though. You can find it on archive.

>>22595484
>>22595565
Thank God someone pointed this out, can never bring up the LTV without brainlets going
>BUT ME MAKE SHIT PIE AND IT NO VALUE! DEBOONKED

>>22599364
>All the work one cares to add will not turn a mud pie into an apple tart
stopped reading right there

Marx didn't draw the link between the capital required for invention and technological progress. Is this 'mental effort'?.
The maths involved in his LTV are apparently dismal. Probably regressed from Ricardo, who he had misunderstood.
Proclaims everyone before him to have been a classical economist -> still misunderstood them.
In answer to how it is wrong - the subjective theory of value is the dominant paradigm because all searches for an objective value have failed. He never solved the Ricardo's problem, that was Pierro Sraffa. imo it's unconvincing (but at least mathematically correct, unlike Marx/Ricardo before him).

>>22595189
just abstract problems away questions you are claiming to address through your explanation and the theory makes perfect sense! You didn't get the link b/w capital and financing innovation - unsurprisingly Marx doesn't either.

>>22599478
>failed to read skill in volume 1

>>>/vg/450068460
Artificial Academy 2 General /aa2g/ #1295
Sweater Puppies Edition

Welcome, this general is for the discussion of ILLUSION's Artificial Academy 2.

COPY ERROR MESSAGES WITH CTRL+C, PASTE THEM WITH CTRL+V INTO GOOGLE TRANSLATE. JUST CLICK THE WINDOW AND PRESS CTRL + C, IT WORKS.

>Downloads:
/aa2g/ Pre-Installed Game, AA2Mini: https://tsukiyo.me/AAA/AA2MiniPPX.xml
AAUnlimited updates: https://github.com/aa2g/AA2Unlimited/releases

>Information:
AA2Mini Install Guide:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vS8Ap6CrmSNXRsKG9jsIMqHYuHM3Cfs5qE5nX6iIgfzLlcWnmiwzmOrp27ytEMX03lFNRR7U5UXJalA/pub
General FAQ:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200216045726/https://pastebin.com/bhrA6iGx
AAU Guide and Resources (Modules, Tans, Props, Poses, and More):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17qb1X0oOdMKU4OIDp8AfFdLtl5y_4jeOOQfPQ2F-PKQ/edit#gid=0

>Character Cards [Database], now with a list of every NonOC in the megas:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1niC6g-Xd2a2yaY98NBFdAXnURi4ly2-lKty69rkQbJ0/edit#gid=2085826690
https://db.bepis.moe/aa2/

>Mods & More:
Mods for AAU/AA2Mini (ppx format, the mediafire has everything):
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/vwrmdohus4vhh/Mods
/aa2g/ Modding Reference Guide (Slot lists for Hair/Clothes/Faces, List Guides, and More):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gwmoVpKuSuF0PtEPLEB17eK_dexPaKU106ShZEpBLhg/edit#gid=1751233129
Booru: https://aau.booru.org

>HELP! I have a Nvidia card and my game crashes on startup!
Try the dgVoodoo option in the new win10fix settings.
Alternative: Update your AAU and see if it happens again. If so, disable win10fix, enable wined3d and software vertex processing.
>HELP! Required Windows 11 update broke things!
winkey+R -> ms-settings:developers -> Terminal=Windows Console Host

Previous Thread:
>>>/vg/449160740·

>>22595189
administration and direction actually is much more important then the labor itself. its not the mule that pulls the plow that should get credit for the feild of corn, but the farmer who planned to use the mule in a constructive way.

>>22599626
yeah was quoting a History of Economics journal 'not surprisingly he [Marx] doesn't draw the connection b/w access to capital and innovation' is roughly what it said, and it was pretty convincing.
The question is about economics and the LTV (which he didn't come up with btw, but did think he solved). Any specific argument you'd like to make? The thread is about economics. I've studied economics and you've correctly identified that I do not seek him out for cogent economic reasoning.
I've had his ideas on communism described to me as the utopia that inevitably follows after socialism. Struck me as unrealistic and not very useful if that's it.

>succeeded in not reading his drivel on economics and specifically the labour theory of value.
Anything in Skills? It's a very specific reference but quite useless, care to be specific about the ideas in it? He contradicts himself so many times an isolated chapter is unlikely to help.
worker/numeraire type concepts, is exchange completely stagnant? (pretty sure he contradicted himself on that too).
Have a think about the concept of a measure of absolute value (as opposed to subjective value) even existing.
For example, no one values and love black penis in their hot little ass as much as you. You'd pay anything to have it around, and you'd happily provide the socially necessary labour to alienate and consume his surplus nut (same as OP).

>>22600387
I should add to my point that most people don't want to pay for the privilege of working a black dude's shaft

>>22595172
>>22595131
In Progress and Poverty, Henry George writes that labor *proceeds* all value , not that all labor is valuable.


...then he goes on to ruin his masterpiece by equating women and niggers to humans.

>>22599671
and the mule never does.
The mule falls under the catagory of 'land' in George's framework of land, (human) labor, and capital.

>>22598345
>>I know nothing about Hegel.
You know nothing about Poincaré.
>>22597393
>dialectics ain't no Chaos Theory.

>>22600407
but some will

>>22598338
>Marx states several times the theory accounts for demand and supply.
And >>22597952 it makes his theory wrong for the very same reason mainstream economics is wrong. Supply/demand cannot be accounted for.

>>22599478
>the subjective theory of value is the dominant paradigm because
because there is no such thing as value. Your whole 'science' is Special Olympics, astrology and psychometrician fallacy.

>>22600492
>there is no such thing as value
NOTHING IS SACRED!

>>22599671
Administration and direction are themselves forms of labor.
>much more important
They are both necessary, genius.

>its not the mule that pulls the plow that should get credit for the feild of corn, but the farmer who planned to use the mule in a constructive way
I wonder if it would be true if mules could speak and wield firearms.

>>22595189
You are just proving that marxism is ultimately a religious doctrine, not the obvious science it pretends to be.

>>22600615
>Administration and direction are themselves forms of labor.
Everything is labor. Even leisure is labor. I toil even as I sleep.

>>22600492
RETARD. THAT IS WHAT THE SUBJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE IS. See when I said that searches for an objective/absolute measure of value have failed? Yes they've failed because there isn't an objective measure of value.

THE 'THEORY' DOESN'T EVEN INVOLVE NUMBERS AT ALL. I mean I expected retarded takes but fuck me...
CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR UNIQUE THOUGHTS ABOUT VALUE AS LAID OUT IN THE SUBJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE.
I'm glad you appreciate that the idea of value has long perplexed respected economists, mathematicians, and philosophers. More recently, absolute fuckwits too.
Congratulations on entering a discussion that began with Plato, it was gibberish but you tried.

I'm aware it's not a science, not sure if that's meant to be controversial or edgy but seems to be a go to insult. Which economist hurt you? I'm shit at maths too bud, don't have to get angry at ppl looking at numbers.

Ironically (given you frankly have no clue about history or economics), fetishising empiricism was the 'dominant paradigm' (a paradigm being the general way the subject is treated in academia or the GENERAL VIEW) in the days of 'high capitalism' 90s-2000s especially or see the mathematical school ~1900s for the same (often valid) complaints. I don't know what 'psychometrician fallacy' is, I'd have thought maybe econometrician's fallacy would be a better analogy for economics.
There is such thing as value, measuring it is different.

tldr; Advice for people through the mental anguish of failing to qualify for the Special Olympics, and trying calm him down after numbers.

>>22600650
>THAT IS WHAT THE SUBJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE IS.
>THE 'THEORY' DOESN'T EVEN INVOLVE NUMBERS AT ALL.
In theory, lol. In practice, it's 'utils'.
The only difference is that the early neoclassicists (like Francis Edgeworth) dreamt of builduing 'hedonimeteres' to measure 'atoms of pleasure', and nowadays we just have to pretend that since we replaced cardinal numbers with ordinal numbers we have somehow side-stepped the problem.

>Congratulations on entering a discussion that began with Plato,
>Ironically (given you frankly have no clue about history or economics),
congratulations on counting the uncountable via 'revealed preferences' that began with Paul Samuelson.

>I don't know what 'psychometrician fallacy' is
It's when some faggots claim that their 'subjective value' is uncountable, yet they still use statistics to count something. That is, the whole modern mainstream economics falls under it, too.

https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/000711007X243582
"The psychometricians' fallacy concludes that an attribute is quantitative from the premise that it is ordinal. <...> Most of the founders of the discipline committed it and it makes sense of otherwise anomalous developments within the discipline, such as the permissible statistics controversy <...> The fallacy is displayed by showing (1) that an attribute's quantitative structure reduces to a weak order upon differences between degrees that satisfies the double cancellation, solvability, and Archimedean conditions of conjoint measurement theory and (2) the fact that any order on the degrees themselves does not entail sufficient structure on this weak order to guarantee satisfaction of these conditions. Thus, it is possible that an ordered attribute is non-quantitative."

>>22595688
Yes. Marx's theory of capital is a qualitative theory describing social relations, not a quantitative theory describing how to get rich quick or whatever.

>>22597409
Value implies labour
Labour does not necessarily imply value
Your fallacy is called affirming the consequent

This is your reasoning
If P then Q
Q
Therefore P

That is a fallacy. Look:
If it’s a tiger it has stripes
It has stripes
Therefore it is a tiger

Your use:
If something is valuable it was produced by labour
X was produced by labour
Therefore it is valuable

That’s a fallacy

>>22600715
didn't read your gradeschool soligism
ask a man dying of thirst the value of water. wow your argument falls apart.
bye

>>22600723
I’m not a Marxist but I’m pretty sure he’s talking about the market value not the value in extreme circumsrances. But maybe I’m wrong

>>22598616
>show me a single store selling a mass commodity that is being made less valuable by applying extra labour and materials. I'll wait

Assuming "value" even exists (see: >>22597321), Logically, the application of labor and materials inevitably makes any and all things less and less valuable. I myself do not believe in Causality (or even in reality), but according to Materialism, ironically, labor is synonymous with entropy (strangely enough perfectly coinciding the vulgarity of reified labor and the "Metaphysical" idea of "work"). Therefore, the only thing that can be said to constitute a "mere abstraction" is labor itself: labor is a scam, its only product is the illusion of opposing the total expenditure of entropy.

>>22600753
see a shrink

>>22595172
No wonder Marxism still has the stranglehold it has when its critics are this level of midwit.

I agree with the doctrines of Marxism, but marxists are generally utopian retards

>>22601024
Eh, the laws of historical dialectic do not supersede the Sturgeon’s Law.

>>22601024
>I agree with the doctrines of Marxism, but
And I don't agree even with that.

Historicism is too vague a doctrine without darwinian filters.
Materialism is basically rationalism, i.e. ignores embodimentness of cognition and the role of uncertainty.
Labour is too narrow to describe the whole spectrum social relationships (especially, given the roles of uncertainty and complexity)
Dialectics is just bullshit.
And striving for equality is just undesirable, since it is a strive towards being a replaceable tool (1=1)

I've jerked my dick every night for 30 years. How much is that worth to you, you pinko fucks?

>>22601128
how much hedonic pleasure (in utils) did you derive?

>>22601139
eye rollers and toe curlers multiple times a night

>>22601128
>>22601139
IT IS NOT HANDS THAT CALL US. IT IS DESIRE!

>>22600734
>I’m not a Marxist but I’m pretty sure he’s talking about the market value not the value in extreme circumsrances.
In this case the water has a higher price since the supply is low, but this doesn't explain what determines the price of water when supply and demand are equal.

>>22601128
If you were selling your jizz then that volume of fapping would be worth less on the market, given the same amount of jizz on average is produced with less effort. It wouldn't be worth more simply because you jerked off a lot.

>>22601175
Your mouth. My dick. How much?

>>>/vg/450068460
Artificial Academy 2 General /aa2g/ #1295
Sweater Puppies Edition

Welcome, this general is for the discussion of ILLUSION's Artificial Academy 2.

COPY ERROR MESSAGES WITH CTRL+C, PASTE THEM WITH CTRL+V INTO GOOGLE TRANSLATE. JUST CLICK THE WINDOW AND PRESS CTRL + C, IT WORKS.

>Downloads:
/aa2g/ Pre-Installed Game, AA2Mini: https://tsukiyo.me/AAA/AA2MiniPPX.xml
AAUnlimited updates: https://github.com/aa2g/AA2Unlimited/releases

>Information:
AA2Mini Install Guide:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vS8Ap6CrmSNXRsKG9jsIMqHYuHM3Cfs5qE5nX6iIgfzLlcWnmiwzmOrp27ytEMX03lFNRR7U5UXJalA/pub
General FAQ:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200216045726/https://pastebin.com/bhrA6iGx
AAU Guide and Resources (Modules, Tans, Props, Poses, and More):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17qb1X0oOdMKU4OIDp8AfFdLtl5y_4jeOOQfPQ2F-PKQ/edit#gid=0

>Character Cards [Database], now with a list of every NonOC in the megas:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1niC6g-Xd2a2yaY98NBFdAXnURi4ly2-lKty69rkQbJ0/edit#gid=2085826690
https://db.bepis.moe/aa2/

>Mods & More:
Mods for AAU/AA2Mini (ppx format, the mediafire has everything):
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/vwrmdohus4vhh/Mods
/aa2g/ Modding Reference Guide (Slot lists for Hair/Clothes/Faces, List Guides, and More):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gwmoVpKuSuF0PtEPLEB17eK_dexPaKU106ShZEpBLhg/edit#gid=1751233129
Booru: https://aau.booru.org

>HELP! I have a Nvidia card and my game crashes on startup!
Try the dgVoodoo option in the new win10fix settings.
Alternative: Update your AAU and see if it happens again. If so, disable win10fix, enable wined3d and software vertex processing.
>HELP! Required Windows 11 update broke things!
winkey+R -> ms-settings:developers -> Terminal=Windows Console Host

Previous Thread:
>>>/vg/449160740

>>22601224
abloobloo

supply and demand

>>22601065
nice strawmen you mentally ill faggot

>>22601187
That's an exclusive service for the person I love, sorry.

>>22601224
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

>>22601301
Her dick must be very lucky.

>>22601300
Marx literally said that if you degenerate into hobo, you'll automatically gain superpowers via alchemical law of "nigredo-albedo-rubedo".

"Where, then, is the positive possibility of a German emancipation?
Answer: In the formulation of a class with radical chains, a class of civil society which is not a class of civil society, an estate which is the dissolution of all estates, a sphere which has a universal character by its universal suffering and claims no particular right because no particular wrong, but wrong generally, is perpetuated against it; which can invoke no historical, but only human, title; which does not stand in any one-sided antithesis to the consequences but in all-round antithesis to the premises of German statehood; a sphere, finally, which cannot emancipate itself without emancipating itself from all other spheres of society and thereby emancipating all other spheres of society, which, in a word, is *the complete loss of man* and *hence can win itself only through the complete re-winning of man*. This dissolution of society as a particular estate is the proletariat."

And if the language part of your brain is damaged into aphasia, you'll immediately invent and gain access to neuralink device. Instead of just being a mute cripple, you know.

>>22601065
>And striving for equality is just undesirable, since it is a strive towards being a replaceable tool (1=1)
Perhaps communism strives for equality in the sense of unwinding class relations, but that everyone has different abilities and needs is inherently unequal

>>22595131
>the value of a product is directly proportional to the amount of human labor, including both physical and mental effort, invested in its creation
Perhaps in a very early world where all economic activity was based around resource extraction and the only form of value addition was human labor, this may have been true in a broad sense, but by the time Marx wrote this, it had already become false. There are many forms of value adding which may occur, and not all are based in human labor. Manufacturing is an example of this. Two identical goods can be produced in radically different ways. The value of the goods is identical as they are interchangeable, but the labor involved in the creation of them can be drastically different. Location is another example. Two identical goods are produced using the exact same amount of labor, but they are separated by a thousand miles. The conditions surrounding the goods determine their value as much as the qualities the good possess.

>>22601570
>Two identical goods can be produced in radically different ways. The value of the goods is identical as they are interchangeable, but the labor involved in the creation of them can be drastically different.
This is basically le mud pie argument again. The LTV is about socially necessary labor time, not just all labor.

>>22595131
>How?
>How is this wrong?
>It's so obvious and basic.
don't worry about it. it became irrelevant decades a go

>>22601570
>Two identical goods can be produced in radically different ways. The value of the goods is identical as they are interchangeable, but the labor involved in the creation of them can be drastically different.
no, the producers will be driven by competition to produce them using the same amount of labour. there is a fact of the matter about the cheapest feasible way to mass produce something in given conditions, and the producers will be driven to adopt that way as cost optimization.
and if there's difference in conditions between producers, then the capital will exit places with conditions less favorable for cheapening production and move to those more favorable so that the conditions equalize too and allow for the equalization of methods described above.
>Two identical goods are produced using the exact same amount of labor, but they are separated by a thousand miles.
transport labour counts too, so accounting for that the values remain equal

When are those lazy proles going to get off their bums and start the revolution already? Sick of waging DESU

>>22598930
Then literally everything work related is labour. Including owning a business, retard

>>22601887
Managing a business is labour, simply owning one not so much.

>>22596736
And skill is a subjective evaluation done by the customers, in this case a woman receiving the dicking, proving that labour theory is horseshit. Thanks for playing

>>22601919
people don't put capital into reproducing things customers don't buy, which means your argument is void.
the substance of value is specifically commodity-producing labour not just any labour. your confusion amounts to believing the latter

>>22601919
>>22601944
believing that value theory proposes the latter*
in other words it's still nothing but the mud pie argument. pretty embarrassing for you

>>22595131
Read Human Action to get out the ignorance pit that you are in

>>22602240
In which Mises invents an imaginary socialist society inhabited by complete retards and then proves how his own mind-creation is not feasible. It serves as a great expose of his own mindrot but nothing of worth beyond that.

>>>/pol/444844444
>>>/pol/444844444

Why would you trust a homeless potato farmer? Also the 100 million+ that have been killed in this ideology’s name in the last century apparently isn’t a big enough red flag for you either.

>>22601913
Did the business just fall into their lap? Did they wave a magic wand? Retard.

>>22599148
ok, now here is a commodity example for you. Say that for the last 5 years I've been putting the same amount of labor into my farm and selling wheat for 600$ a ton. Now, this year we've had similar weather conditions so the amount of labor I put in farming is the same, but there's this war that breaks out in one of the largest producers of wheat in the world, suddenly they can't export and people are willing to pay 1200$ a ton for wheat. Did the amount of labor I put in producing this wheat retroactively change?

Seems like your definition of "value" is a completely abstract notion that zero applicability to any observed events in the real world, while the subjective theory of value very accurately explains what everyone understands as "value".

>>22595131
If I spend 8000+ hours polishing a rock, is it going to be worth 8000 hours of my labour?
If I spend several thousand hours in the meticulous destruction of a house, is that house going to be worth all those hours of my labour?
If I spend 8000 hours writing a book which is just the repetition of the word "the", is it going to be worth the amount of hours I put into writing it?

>>22595131
you are missing the difference between "abstract" and "concrete" labor there, anon

>>22595189
>Labour isn't an abstraction
>it is the ONLY thing that produces.
Does a labour saving device lower the value of the finished product?
If we achieve fully automated luxury communism will the value of products be zero?
If yes, this concept of "value" is itself a mere abstraction, not a material reality. If no, you have conceded supply/demand theory, the central point of capitalist ideology (which would itself be refuted by full automation, but that's a discussion for another thread).

>>22602721
Do you have a point?

>>22602954
>Does a labour saving device lower the value of the finished product?
Obviously. The less labour it takes to produce something the lower the value.

>>22602759
>but price doesn't equal value!
Yes, Marx knew that.

>>22602769

>>22595238
If no-one is selling it for $1, how is it worth $1? "It's worth $1 according to this theory, which is backed up by literally nothing and does not work in reality."
Amazing. I'm convinced!

>>22595148
based

>>22595673
>woah dude communism is cool and good!
>its not tho
>ummm ummm its just a meme tho you cant crticise my beliefs because its actually just a meme!! (even tho this meme accurately represents my exact beliefs!)

insidious.

>>22599175
hes saying he spent a lot of time thinking so he deserves a lot of money even though his ideas wore a net negative for society and that trash truck drivers should be paid as much as doctors because muh hours, also we don't need lawyers

Marx was a legit fucking retard. Lenin did him a huge solid by attaching "Marxism" to Leninism, which was by and large it's own thing and was politically viable. If you're a commie, Leninism is the thing you should be researching, all you retards trying to prop up Marx are laughable.

Get Galkovsky-pilled

>>22598616
>show me a single store selling a mass commodity that is being made less valuable by applying extra labour and material
Clothes. Simple is more valued than tacky, but tacky obviously requires more steps.

>>22597474
>do you know what hunter gatherer societies were?
yea, they were what led to Western civilization. Tribal societies tended polygamous while hunter gatherers were only able to support one woman and her children.
One man could not gather enough recourses to support multiple women and their offspring, which led to the notion of the nuclear family, you know, the thing that Marxists want to destroy.

>>22603340
The meme isn't accurate at all.

>>22603383
Well that's just wrong.

>>22603396
How so? Cheap shirts with nonsense prints would be valued more if they didn't have the print. The print degrades them, while it obviously requires more labor to have it.

>>22603383
Videogames

>>22603446
Meant for >>22598616
Modern games have more labor and resources poured into them, yet have less value in the long term in comparison to older games.

>>22603390
>hunter gatherers were only able to support one woman and her children.
think you win biggest retard ITT with this absolute nonsense, congrats

>>22603455
Parts-paired tech is also a great example. The shit where components have hardcoded unique IDs so they refuse to function with parts other than the ones set in factory.

Read Böhm-Bawerk, you dumb cunts.
Marx's system was disproven before the soulless kike even died.

>>22603476
How so?

>>22603482
A book's worth of mathematical proof that Marx's calculations were wrong and self-contradictory, showcasing the reality that there was no scientific basis for any of Marx's attempts at stripping Hegel's legacy off its religious nature.

>>22603476
"In fact, the theory is incomplete in ways that extend beyond Böhm-Bawerk’s utilitarian individualism. Note that the labour theory of value requires perfect competition. Firms and workers have to be ‘price takes’, unable to individually affect prices and wages – for otherwise, market prices could be set ‘arbitrarily’ without any necessary link to production prices. Moreover, capital and labour must be able to move freely between industries in order to equalize the rates of profit and exploitation across different sectors (for instance, Sweezy 1942: 270–74; and Howard and King 1992: 282).

And yet, these conditions of perfect competition do not – and, as we argue later in the book, cannot – exist in the capitalist reality. Instead of atomistic competition in the so-called economic sphere, the history of capitalism impresses on us a broader myriad of restrictive social institutions and power processes. These include, among others, big business, big bureaucracies and big armies, redistribution and restructuring by government, international struggles, segmented labour markets, core-periphery interactions, ideological persuasion, material cooptation and, last but not least, the extensive use of force and violence at every level of society.

The existence of these power institutions and processes makes labour values (and therefore prices of production) practically useless for the study of actual prices and accumulation. In fact, under such conditions, the value of labour power – the basic input in all production processes and the ultimate anchor of accumulation – is already contaminated by power relations"

>>22603390
please... hunter-gatherer societies were a community of people not just the man and the woman, you utter tard

>>22602759
>Did the amount of labor I put in producing this wheat retroactively change?
no, the price got divorced far from value due to the shortage of supply relative to demand.
but the fact that you have to invent an extraordinary condition in order to make the price not correspond to the value only proves that in ordinary conditions the tendency is for them to correspond.
in fact if the war is expected to last, new capital will immediately go into producing wheat due to the increased prices (= momentarily increased profits), and the resultant increase in supply will lead to prices coming back down to correspond to values.
so you've inadvertently given a nice example of how correspondence of prices to values comes about.
>>22602769
if the rocks can be continually sold at prices corresponding to 8000 hours of labour and that's the reasonably optimal way of producing them, then yes. otherwise, no.
same with the other examples.
>>22602954
>If yes, this concept of "value" is itself a mere abstraction, not a material reality.
it is a material reality. it says how much of its labour society needs to give up if it wants to have a unit of a given product. this is a crucial material reality constraining what people produce and what proportions they exchange their products in.
>>22603374
"Leninism" was invented by Stalin. Lenin himself was a Marxist.
>>22603383
>Simple is more valued than tacky, but tacky obviously requires more steps.
two false generalizations
>>22603455
>Modern games have more labor and resources poured into them,
games aren't a mass commodity. they're one-and-done. when the capital is realized from selling a game, it's not used to make the same game again, it's used to make a different new game.
so this example doesn't apply. because in things that aren't mass commodities, the prices are going to significantly depart from values based on contingent factors.

>>22603455
>>22603760
now that I think about it, your example is not entirely unrelated even if a video game isn't a mass commodity but a singular commodity: since a game is a singular commodity sold in parts, what you need to compare is the sums of prices of all of the parts, i.e. of all the sold copies. and if you took the total sales in USD of the average 1993 game and the average 2023 game, I'm pretty sure the difference would correspond to the increase in labour input over time. so this example supports me rather than being the counter-example I asked for.

>>22603760
>>22603782
just to clarify: the part where we take the average of all the games instead of looking at a single one is what gets rid of the problem mentioned earlier:
>in things that aren't mass commodities, the prices are going to significantly depart from values based on contingent factors
the averaging is to cancel out the contingent factors regarding individual games. it's as if we took a "game" to be the mass produced commodity and averaged out the differences between individual games so that we can treat them just like we treat individual potatoes as tokens of the commodity potato.
and only then can value analysis to apply to games. individually, the prices can swing wildly, because while there's a recipe for making a potato, there's no recipe for making a game. they're more like unique artifacts than mass commodities. but on average, the gaming industry, still have to make profit, so on that scale, the law of value will apply and the sum of sales will be equal to the cost of inputs + average profit, and consequently will correspond to the labour put in.

Communism in Russia from the beginning was some sort of madmax dystopia, but today the capitalist countries are no different.

>>22602968
Then there is no fixed material reality to it.
>>22603760
>it says how much of its labour society needs to give up if it wants to have a unit of a given product
Not in fully automated communism. Zero labour will be required, leaving only resource allocation as the measure of value.
The present world is a partially realised phase of this - some labour mixed with some automation.

>>22604151
products don't have value in a communist society because they're no longer exchanged on the market. it doesn't matter whether it's actual communism or some imaginary "fully automated communism"
>The present world is a partially realised phase of this - some labour mixed with some automation.
no, the automation takes a given amount of labour to realize: you need to build the automata and keep them running. so they also represent a portion of society's labour. they're only implemented if they take less labour to achieve the same effect compared with using human labour for the tasks directly.

>>22603122
so I repeat, your definition of "value" has no actual implications in real life. "oh yeah it's the value of a commodity, but not the price that is payed in the market, also not the subjective value that the costumer gives to it. No it's not the value that the producer gives to it either. Also, there is no formula to calculate it."

Admit it, it's a bogus definition whose only purpose is to justify you bogus ideology by conflating opposing definitions of value.

>>22595131
The "worth" of something is determined by a lot more than necessary labour-time. Obvious example most people go to is stuff like wine, which appreciates in value with time despite the labour time being out of whack with the cost of the bottle.

>>22595457
>Loaning money is not productive.
Alright, I think I've finally had it with lefties.

>>22604190
>products don't have value in a communist society
So this "value" is a social construct, not a thing in itself. Change the society and it disappears.
>they're only implemented if they take less labour to achieve the same effect
Hence the exact same material effect is performed with less labour. Thanks for proving my point for me - this shit is not material reality.

>>22604276
it has implications because the prices are regulated by the values. and your own example illustrates how this happens, as explained here >>22603760

>>22604313
you're confusing price with value. in your example, the price exceeds the value significantly because of a hard supply limitation (30 year old wine can't be immediately reproduced) and because of profit rate equalization (30 years of aging means that the final price must include return for 30 1 year-long turnovers of capital). but those extraordinary circumstances don't apply to the bulk of commodities.

the fact that you guys have to specifically go for those ultra exceptions for counter-arguments (e.g. a war causing a sudden temporary drop in supply or a commodity that takes decades to reproduce when 99% of commodities sold can be reproduced basically immediately) only further proves the rule

>>22604501
>So this "value" is a social construct
value is a specific social relation, yes
>Change the society and it disappears.
almost as if the communist movement is about changing society
>Hence the exact same material effect is performed with less labour
yes
>Thanks for proving my point for me
but that's Marx's point. things taking less labour to produce because of technology is the basis of relative surplus value:
>By increase in the productiveness of labour, we mean, generally, an alteration in the labour-process, of such a kind as to shorten the labour-time socially necessary for the production of a commodity, and to endow a given quantity of labour with the power of producing a greater quantity of use-value. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch12.htm

>this shit is not material reality.
it is material reality though. advancing technology really makes it so we need to expend less labour to achieve the same useful effect. what's exactly immaterial about this?

>>22603792
Games are commodities. You were given a clear counter example. Newer games have less value despite more labor. There are better explanations for this than the LTV.

>>22604313
>>22604555
one more note on the wine: the hard supply limitation on, say, 30 year old wine is a thing because of how much the market has grown in 30 years. there are just many more consumers able to pay for old wine that there have been decades ago, so it's obvious that the supply set in stone 30 years ago couldn't have been enough to cover this demand.
whereas regular commodities can be produced from scratch in a matter of months to dynamically adjust to growing demand. this is why aged wine is a special case.

>>22604567
I know games are commodities. I've already explained in depth why your supposed counter-example is actually an example in my favour >>22603760 >>22603782 >>22603792
if you have follow up questions then you can ask them. but don't just repeat your outdated point pretending my answer didn't happen.

>>22604580
No you really didn’t. LTV has nothing to do with why newer games have less value than older ones. You’re “in depth” rambling went nowhere. Older games took less labor to produce yet are more valuable.

>>22604580
>brings up counter examples
>no, those are just special cases
Marxist thinking

>>22604592
my "rambling" already contains answers to this in concise form, but I'll repeat them for the illiterate
>LTV has nothing to do with why newer games have less value than older ones
they do have more value though
>Older games took less labor to produce yet are more valuable.
no they aren't. compare total dollar sales of the average 1993 game with the total dollar sales of the average 2023 game.
if the 2023 average isn't greater, then that's only because of all the Unity copy-paste games that actually take less labour than 1993 games. and if you limit the comparison only to games by top studios, then the 2023 games definitely made more revenue. either way my point is supported.

>>22604599
if the "counter-example" only applies to something that isn't supposed to come under the rule in the first place, then yeah, it's not a counter-example to the rule.
Marxists simply never claimed that the prices of aged wines correspond to their values, and in fact they've explained why this isn't so (Marx literally talks about wines specifically in Capital). so by showing that this is the case you're only showing evidence in favour of what the Marxists are saying, not against it. it's just how it is.

>>22604648
Older games on average have more resale value than newer games. You clearly don’t know the market. Games only make more money now due to a larger gamer market. Despite that, older games retain higher value over newer ones. Pac-Man is worth more than Minecraft. Silent hill 2 the original will be worth more than its remake.

>>22604648
GTAV took 3 years to make. RDR2 took 8. Use your LTV magic to guess which made rockstar more money

>>22604648
>if the "counter-example" only applies to something that isn't supposed to come under the rule in the first place, then yeah
Hence why we treat the LTV as a rough guideline, not a law of nature

>>22604702
>Older games on average have more resale value than newer games
no they don't. most older games have sold their last copy 20 years ago and nobody remembers them. you're just cherry picking the 0.1% that has lasted.
>Games only make more money now due to a larger gamer market.
yeah no shit. and that's the reason companies put more labour in the games now. because the market is larger and the games can bring enough revenue to cover the costs. which exactly proves my point.
>Despite that, older games retain higher value over newer ones.
diablo II costs 10 dollars
diablo IV costs 70 dollars
and diablo II is already a positive exception compared to the average 2000 game
>>22604717
see >>22603760
>in things that aren't mass commodities, the prices are going to significantly depart from values based on contingent factors.
due to the nature of software (the fact that you can copy it), GTA V and RDR 2 count as just two singular commodities sold in many parts. hence their individual prices are going to greatly depend contingent factors. the correspondence of prices to values only obtains on mass production scale, so here you'd need to take the average of 1000s of games, as already explained here >>22603792
and then you'd see that the amount of revenue is correlated with the amount of labour input.

it's just that simple you subhuman single digit IQ retarded commie cattle.

>>22604754
Pac-Man continues to sell copied and continues to make more money over newer games that took more Labor to make. This isn’t cherry picking. It’s taking one particular commodity and comparing it with another. By averaging the prices you are losing the details. Diablo IV will drop in price, as all new games do ands it’s resale will eventually be lower than SSBM.

>>22604754
If commodities contained value, and that value was socially necessary Labor time, we’d expect any individual game made with more socially necessary labor time to make more money. Pac-Man and GTAV disprove that.

>>22604555
>because the prices are regulated by the values
That would imply that firms are ultimately price-takers, not price-makers. But firms do not behave like that. Once you add monopolies/oligopolies/conglomerates into equation, suddenly the prices become regulated only by brute force.

Refusing to concede that, would imply that Marx was a theorist of a market equilibrium. Which renders his theory garbage, since market equilibrium doesn't really exist.

>>22604765
>Bohm-Bawerk
nta,

They cannot come out of wants, because
1) you cannot quantify and measure wants
2) firms are not price-takers, but price-makers

The prices are set solely by power >>22603534. It's just that simple

>>22604754
>because the market is larger and the games can bring enough revenue to cover the costs. which exactly proves my point.
The market is larger because there are more people interested in games, not because more effort is put into making games. The demand precedes the labor. In turn, there is more room for profit, so companies can make more money and invest in more labor. However, investing in more labor is no guarantee of greater value. Hence why RDR2 made less than GTAV. More time and effort does not mean more value or money.

It's always the same commie fag replying to every post in these type of threads.

>>22604775
>This isn’t cherry picking. It’s taking one particular commodity and comparing it with another
which is cherry picking in this case, because the law isn't supposed to apply to unique commodities, just to mass produced commodities. which means you must compare two types of mass produced commodities. comparisons of two unique commodities are completely beside the point.
and if you actually do a mass comparison and compare not just pacman but all games produced in 1980 or w/e with all games produced in 2023, you'll see the positive correlation between the total labour input and the sum of prices.
>By averaging the prices you are losing the details
the "details" being the contingent factors that don't come under the law of value. they're irrelevant to the law of value because the law of value isn't supposed to describe them. so you can't use them to evaluate the law of value. that doesn't make sense.
>>22604784
wrong, because each individual market price isn't supposed to equal value. the correspondence is supposed to only obtain on average for mass produced commodities. two uniquely produced commodities couldn't be further from that.
>>22604789
>But firms do not behave like that
yes they do
>Once you add monopolies/oligopolies/conglomerates into equation, suddenly the prices become regulated only by brute force
in your imaginary world, but the real world is full of competition on different levels.
>Refusing to concede that, would imply that Marx was a theorist of a market equilibrium
no, it would imply that you can only think in black and white. Marx was describing a tendency. it can at the same time be true that the tendency is never realized perfectly and that despite this the tendency still has significant impact instead of being completely overridden by muh imaginary monopolies.
but for you it's black and white: either there's magical market equilibrium or everything is a monopoly and prices are arbitrary.
>>22604817
>The market is larger because there are more people interested in games, not because more effort is put into making games.
okay, but so what?
>However, investing in more labor is no guarantee of greater value
it is on average
>More time and effort does not mean more value or money.
it does on average. that's why you can lend money at a certain positive interest: on average, more money mobilizes more effort and more effort results in a total product that brings in more revenue.
of course a single particular investment can flop or succeed beyond expectation, but those things cancel out when you look at the big picture, and that's when the tendency described by the law of value emerges.

>>22595131
>In other words, the value of a product is directly proportional to the amount of human labor, including both physical and mental effort, invested in its creation.
"Socially necessary" labor is key here. "Socially necessary" is a catch all quality added to the LTV definition so that any labor that doesn't produce profits can be excluded as "exceptions" from the theory.

>>22604804
>you cannot quantify and measure wants
of course you can, people pay more for things they value more.

>firms are not price-takers, but price-makers
in a market where you are constrained by order of law namely in a market where you are not allowed to kill the other guy who is selling hot dogs your influence on the price is limited by how good people think your hot dog is, that's it. they won't buy it if it's too expensive and you will go bankrupt if you sell it for too cheap.

stop being a retard who thinks the answer is in the confusion and nonsense words tied together, use your fucking brain.

>>22604868
>which is cherry picking in this case, because the law isn't supposed to apply to unique commodities
>The labor theory of value (LTV) is a theory of value that argues that the economic value of a good or service is determined by the total amount of "socially necessary labor" required to produce it.
The law applies to all commodities. I'm going with the accepted definition, not your own personal one. It's a consistent theme in this thread - any time there's a counter example, then the "law doesn't apply". Very good thinking on your part.
>and if you actually do a mass comparison and compare not just pacman but all games produced in 1980 or w/e with all games produced in 2023, you'll see the positive correlation between the total labour input and the sum of prices.
You'll see that older games are more valuable than newer ones, and you'll see that the market has grown, so more companies and people are profiting from the demand. No need for the LTV here.
>it is on average
>it does on average
The average is based on an arbitrary number of instances of labor, so useless in determining the actual value of the commodity. You are describing market averages, not the actual value of the commodities being sold.
>on average, more money mobilizes more effort and more effort results in a total product that brings in more revenue
Yes, labor helps build products which profit due to market demand. No one debates that.

>>22604868
>but the real world is full of competition on different levels.
The competition that is not economical one. It's how railroads in USA got dismantled, so that cars would be sold better.

>Marx was describing a tendency. it can at the same time be true that the tendency is never realized perfectly
And it can be true, that we do not need any magical labor to describe capitalist cycles.


>>22604888
>people pay more for things they value more
No, you cannot. >>22600674
Because psychometrician fallacy, and because 'revealed preferences' are a very poor methodology.

>in a market where you are constrained by order of law
Yes, yes, and now we bring Santa Claus into this. Totally not the case, that 'the order of the law' is constrained by the lobby of 'robber barons'.

>where you are not allowed to kill the other guy
Again, you are not describing the real world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

>>22604555
>value is a specific social relation
>technology is the basis of relative surplus value
Again, thank you for proving my point for me. Value is coming from labour + technology, not from mere labour.
>it is material reality though. advancing technology really makes it so we need to expend less labour
The labour is material, the technology is an idea - one of those dreaded abstractions like shareholding or finance. Yet it achieves a material result. When you change your immaterial abstractions you get different material results.

>>22604941
>if I use jargon and send wikipedia articles I can circumvent logic
yeah well I tried.

>>22604888
>people pay more for things they value more.

>>22605030
how stupid do you have to be to think this in anyway refutes what I shared? ford got so successful because people valued cars more than horses lol.

>>22604931
>The law applies to all commodities
it applies to all commodities as a tendency which obtains on average. but that doesn't mean every single market price is equal to value. this is what I meant
>I'm going with the accepted definition
you're not when you imply that every market price is supposed to equal value. you've quoted a wikipedia article you haven't even read:
>LTV does not deny the role of supply and demand influencing price, since the price of a commodity is something other than its value. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#Relation_between_values_and_prices

>any time there's a counter example, then the "law doesn't apply"
yeah, that's because it's a true theory. there are no counter-examples to true theories, otherwise they wouldn't be true.
>Very good thinking on your part.
bro your thinking is on the level of denying 'g = GM/r2' because air resistance exists
>You'll see that older games are more valuable than newer ones
no, you'll see that the older games had less labour input on average and made less revenue in total.
>No need for the LTV here.
moving the goalpost. this was supposed to be your counter-example to LTV, not my proof of LTV.
>The average is based on an arbitrary number of instances of labor, so useless in determining the actual value of the commodity. You are describing market averages, not the actual value of the commodities being sold
the averages better correspond to the values because the price deviations for individual commodities cancel out. so they're much more useful to gauging the value than cherry picking single prices.
>No one debates that
you debate it when you deny that there's correspondence between the total labour input and the total money realized from sale, which is what you've done and why I've explained to you that the opposite is the case.
>>22604941
>The competition that is not economical one.
you live in fantasy land. look around you. practically everything you see is produced by multiple capitals that compete over customers through pricing and cost minimization.
>And it can be true, that we do not need any magical labor to describe capitalist cycles
not really relevant to the point. there are too many answers to deal with so I don't have time to engage with your deflections onto different topics, such as crisis theory
>>22604946
>Value is coming from labour + technology, not from mere labour.
no, because technology only affects value by determining how much labour is necessary to produce a given thing. the substance of value is still abstract labour and its quantity is still the quantity of labour. that's the point. technology affects this quantity, but here you don't contradict Marx. I already quoted him saying this much in Capital >>22604555
>The labour is material, the technology is an idea
lol how the fuck is it an idea if it makes the difference between you living in a cave shitting in a bush and you being able to fly around the world in 30 hours. incoherent

>>22605165
>practically everything you see is produced by multiple capitals that compete over customers through pricing and cost minimization.
Pricing is a *power* phenomenon. Multiple capitals are competing differentially to some average Fortune 500 score. Not because of labor time in commodities, not because of utilities in desires even, but because of a random religious belief in mana/prices.

Meaning, it is not a law of nature, but simply an ethos/ritual. And rituals aren't the most systematical things.

>>22605165
>it applies to all commodities as a tendency which obtains on average. but that doesn't mean every single market price is equal to value
So then the LTV would apply to Pacman, but it doesn't.
>you're not when you imply that every market price is supposed to equal value.
I'm not.
>yeah, that's because it's a true theory
>Its true because i say it is
Sure man.
>this was supposed to be your counter-example
And it is, because Pacman is worth more than Minecraft, despite less labor. And your only argument is "it's unique" lmao.
>the averages better correspond to the values because the price deviations for individual commodities cancel out
The average is based off an arbitrary number of labor instances; it is as arbitrary as simply choosing an individual price as the 'real price'. Taking the average doesn't not making your valuation any less arbitrary. If you ever tried using an average to dictate stock movements then you'd know this.
>so they're much more useful to gauging the value than cherry picking single prices
its useful in gambling as well, but it does not actually dictate the value of the next card or commodity. Using averages is in fact cherry picking, since in this case you're arbitrarily choosing a convenient number of labor instances to calculate the average.
>You debate it when you deny that there's correspondence between the total labour input and the total money realized from sale
No I actually haven't. This is your schizophrenic marxist mind at work. Labor certainly influences prices. But it is not equal to the value of a commodity.

>>22605076

>>22605165
>you live in fantasy land
https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/09/04/stocks-are-up-wages-are-down-what-does-it-mean/

"Now here’s the uncomfortable truth. Capital is the same as mana — it’s a euphemism for power. Let’s run through the similarities. Hawaiian elites had power because they had mana. Capitalists have power because they have capital. Hawaiian elites proclaimed their power boldly. So do capitalists, who broadcast their power daily via stock tickers. Lastly, mana had mystical significance. So does capital. By controlling mana, Hawaiian elites became ‘vessels of spiritual energy’. By controlling capital, modern elites (we are told) become ‘vessels of productivity’.

The similarities between mana and capital are unsettling. But there is an important difference between the two ideologies. Hawaiian elites didn’t quantify their power. But modern elites do. Capitalists use the ritual of capitalization to give their power a number. This ritual, Nitzan and Bichler observe, does something unique. It makes capitalism the first social order that is quantitative."

The labor theory of value's central claim is that wage labor is exploitation. Its more of a descriptive claim than a positive claim. The word exploit simply means to "use." The LTV tries to associate exploitation with a negative connotation when its just wordplay. Humans, animals, all living things are must exploit their environment to survive and to live up to their maximum potential. To build a house, I have to exploit trees, to eat I have to exploit animals, to farm I have to exploit rivers for irrigation. The exploitation of wage labor allows for the creation of wealth for not only the firm owner, but also the worker and society itself - its a symbiotic relationship. There aren't any strong claims against wage labor because it produces benefits for society that outweigh any negatives. The alternative, as Marxism would have you, would be shooting people who refuse to work on collective farms. Its ridiculous to even care about Marx's LTV because it doesn't pre-figure a society that's better.

>>22604851
He really is a loser. Its funny because he's not persuading people to be Marxists. He's doing the exact opposite.

>>22605255
Also, the LTV is not a mathematical or scientific theorem. Its a purely descriptive claim. Marx can not prove the value of a commodity comes from labor in itself because all commodities have use-value according to LTV, and use-value effects if a good becomes a commodity in the first place without labor being a function.
There's no way to tell if the value of a good comes from its labor because it really is a function of human preference if a direct good becomes a commodity in the first place.

>>22599671
Well as things tand now neither mule nor farmer gets any all the credit goes to the field owner, who didn't do anything the whole time he was just lucky enought to inherit the field from his father.
So mule<worker<owner , now, that's a much better analogy.

>>22604868
>which is cherry picking in this case, because the law isn't supposed to apply to unique commodities, just to mass produced commodities
"Mass produced commodities" is too vague to be an actual claim. Ironically, you're using a special pleading argument, which is cherrypicking in itself, because you're trying to pull a commodity out of your ass that LTV applies to. You can't make a specific claim, cite a specific commodity and prove it.
Also, work on your English. Its terrible. Its hard to take you seriously with your ESL being this bad.

>>22605165
>the substance of value is still abstract labour
Not in a fully automated factory where there is no labour. Just because we haven't reached that level of manufacturing technique doesn't mean there is some kind of natural law chaining labour to value.
>how the fuck is it an idea
product = useful material object
machine = material object that makes product
technique = idea required to design/build machine
technology = set of techniques (ideas) sufficient for a given machine
>if it makes the difference between you living in a cave shitting in a bush
Yes, abstract ideas impact material reality. Right now capitalists have a pretty firm monopoly on understanding this, hence they control the world. This will continue to be the case for as long as their only opposition are materialists.

>>22605204
ask your doctor for a mana refill
>>22605219
>So then the LTV would apply to Pacman
and it does, tendentially. because if you average out all the games like pacman, you'll see the correspondence to value. but if you cherry pick a single instance of a unique product, the price is likely to be dominated contingent deviations
>>you imply that every market price is supposed to equal value
>I'm not.
you are: >>22604775
>Pac-Man continues to sell copied and continues to make more money over newer games that took more Labor to make

>"Its true because i say it is"
no, it's true because of other reasons. I'm just saying that there not being valid counter-examples to a theory is expected when the theory is true. so what's your point in bringing that up?
>And it is, because Pacman is worth more than Minecraft
so again you're doing the thing you just said you weren't doing.
>And your only argument is "it's unique"
yes, prices of single instances of one-of-a-kind commodities are going to be heavily influenced by contingent factors and deviate from values.
your argument is basically equivalent to "this one potato didn't sell so it's realized price was 0, yet you claim potatoes have a positive value. curious".
the LTV only describes the tendency of prices. this tendency will only be revealed when you look at a mass of commodities. then you'll see that potatoes indeed do have a positive value and that games indeed do command revenue that correlates with their labour input.
>Taking the average doesn't not making your valuation any less arbitrary.
it does, because the averages better correspond to the values, as coincidental price deviations for individual games etc. cancel out (some popular streamer randomly playing a game right after release or w/e).
>but it does not actually dictate the value of the next card or commodity
of course not. that's why I said "gauge". what dictates the value is the socially necessary abstract labour necessary to reproduce a thing of the given kind. the price average is merely the closest possible way of gauging what that value is, not something that dictates the value.
>Using averages is in fact cherry picking
lmfao
>>you deny that there's correspondence between the total labour input and the total money realized from sale
>No I actually haven't.
yes you have >>22604817
>RDR2 made less than GTAV. More time and effort does not mean more value or money.
>>22605267
damn right. why would I want to persuade a bunch of 90 iqs >>22605219 and schizos >>22605204 to be Marxists? lol

>>22605386
>"Mass produced commodities" is too vague to be an actual claim.
no it's not. it should be pretty obvious to anyone with a brain how a particular game is unique in a way a particular potato isn't.
>Ironically, you're using a special pleading argument
me not defending the strawman you came up with is not special pleading
>Also, work on your English. Its terrible
I will. please give me examples of my bad english so I can improve

>>22605421
>Not in a fully automated factory where there is no labour
yes, the law of value wouldn't apply to an economy of fully automated factories. or at least not in its present form. but nobody has claimed it did.
>doesn't mean there is some kind of natural law chaining labour to value.
yes, there isn't such a natural law. there's a social law though, dependent on the relation of capital and wage labour. so without wage labour there's no longer such relation, and the law is buried.
>machine = material object that makes product
>technique = idea required to design/build machine
so it's just dumb semantics? I can do wordplay too and define "machine" as an idea applied by people to a body of matter. do you actually have a point regarding LTV here or are we done with this?

>>22605472
>and it does, tendentially. because if you average out all the games like pacman, you'll see the correspondence to value
>yes, prices of single instances of one-of-a-kind commodities are going to be heavily influenced by contingent factors and deviate from values
The mobile gaming industry, a mass of commodities lol, is in fact more profitable than console gaming despite less labor and resources.
>the LTV only describes the tendency of prices
No it doesn't. It describes the value of a commodity, much more than just a 'tendency'. You don't even know your own theory.
>this tendency will only be revealed when you look at a mass of commodities.
I.e. an arbitrary convenient number of commodities. Makes sense.
>yes you have
this doesn't deny labor as an influence. Learn to read my friend.

>>22605498
>value wouldn't apply to an economy of fully automated factories
You keep admitting this, but then claiming a material basis. If it disappears the moment you change your economy then it's just another social construct like stocks, bonds, feudal holdings, etc.
>"machine" as an idea applied by people to a body of matter
That's exactly what it is. Non-material ideas affect material reality. Just stop being a materialist and you don't have to deal with all these contradictions.

>>22605472
> it should be pretty obvious to anyone with a brain how a particular game is unique in a way a particular potato isn't.
A particular potato can be unique, the same with a piece of gold, corn, a bottle, etc. You're not making a point here. There are in fact different types of potatoes, made from different types of soil, that affect the prices, unrelated to labor.

>>22605537
>The mobile gaming industry, a mass of commodities lol, is in fact more profitable than console gaming despite less labor and resources.
not for long. there are initial super-profits in new industries, but then they're swarmed with capital attracted by those super-profits and the profits become lower due to the increased competition.
>>the LTV only describes the tendency of prices
>No it doesn't. It describes the value of a commodity, much more than just a 'tendency'.
no, it's exactly the tendency of prices, because prices aren't equal to values. they only have a tendency to correspond to values, which is mediated by the market with all its contingencies.
>I.e. an arbitrary convenient number of commodities
it is definitely convenient but it's not arbitrary: the reason why there's better correspondence between the average price and the value as you increase the scope of the average is well defined. namely the local imbalances of demand and supply cancel out.
>this doesn't deny labor as an influence
so what's your point?
>>22605591
>You keep admitting this, but then claiming a material basis. If it disappears the moment you change your economy then it's just another social construct
yeah and? it can both be material and (materially!) apply to one kind of economy.
>That's exactly what it is.
but you just said it's a material object as opposed to an idea. and now you're saying it's an idea. further proof of this being a pointless semantic exercise.
>Just stop being a materialist and you don't have to deal with all these contradictions.
the only contradictions here are in your understanding
>>22605594
>A particular potato can be unique
not to an extent comparable to particular games. now you're just playing dumb
>There are in fact different types of potatoes
obviously I'm talking about potatoes of the same type. they're interchangeable in a way two different games aren't.
>made from different types of soil, that affect the prices, unrelated to labor.
sure, a limited supply due to the limited availability of the necessary soil will make prices deviate above labour values. already explained 5 hours ago >>22604555

>>22605594
>A particular potato can be unique, the same with a piece of gold, corn
The gods are small birds, but I am the falcon.

>>22605689
>not for long. there are initial super-profits in new industries,
Mobile gaming has been here for a while. It's nothing new. Your theory is just shit.
>no, it's exactly the tendency of prices, because prices aren't equal to values.
Wrong. The value of a commodity, according to LTV, is determined by the socially necessary labor time, not the tendencies of the markets. Socially necessary labor time and the tendencies of the markets are not the same.
>it is definitely convenient but it's not arbitrary
It is arbitrary. You are choosing a convenient number of instances to satisfy a convenient market tendency. This is the same issue that occurs in estimating the value of stocks.
>obviously I'm talking about potatoes of the same type.
You talk about whatever market is convenient to your shit theory.
>sure, a limited supply due to the limited availability of the necessary soil will make prices deviate above labour values
So we agree that labor simply influences the price, as well as other factors. Great.

retard took 10 hours to understand that value != price

>>22600674
>it is possible that an ordered attribute is non-quantitative.
Yea if it's not a number especially.
As far as 'counting the uncountable' - imo It's fine to estimate stuff with numbers (it'd be great if te numbers were never misleading, and never interpreted any the produced numbers correctly).

In practice a monetary figure (whether you are happy with how it was conjured up or how you think it should look) is generally provided, for example, salary, ticket price. Point is someone has to run the numbers and make a decision: either without attempting any sort of quantitative analysis/framing the issue mathematically or:
do not use any numbers because they will mislead you so much as to make your decision worse.

>modern mainstream economics falls under it, too.
Maybe, kind of broad.
See Pareto's polemics with his predecessor at Lausanne, Leon Walras where he talks about and objects to the 'metaphysics' involved in his mentor's economics - however Pareto acknowledged (in a speech after Walras' death i think.) his great contribution to mathematical economics in Elements of Pure Economics, but said all the rest of Walras' work was rubbish and 'metaphysics'. Whereas Pareto wanted to measure 'the world as it exists'.
was Edgeworth an early neoclassicalist?

You're wrong about the history which is fair enough, non-anglo economic history isn't really taught.


Generally you've just said things I agree with and have no solution - just problems with how the world is.
I don't have an interest in Marx as an economist, imo he's a bad one based on my limited knowledge - the question was about the labour theory of value i.e. classical economic theories of value. Marx was pretty confused and self-contradictory (abstract, mathematically incorrect by his own definitions - which tended to change right?). I don't really like that aspect of misleading numbers, composite social value = 3? + mental labour units or whatever bs.

>>22604555
yeah you did confuse price with value.
tech improvements come from being funded by this capitalist though, at least long term? Or do they stop producing and there becomes this relative surplus/increase thing?
Or Marx just didn't say, that's wat im wondering about

>>22605809
fact that walras had 'utilete' v Pareto's ophelimity also helps show the methodological divide.