/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11203388]

Dude, the value of things is equal to the congealed labour power in them. *hits bong*. Oh, what's that? There are things that are very expensive just because they are rare and people want them? Just ignore them bro, they aren't real.

[Anonymous No.11203397]

>>11203388
So if it's rare, it must've been hard to obtain through some kind of labour which gives it more value. Nice bait tho.

[Anonymous No.11203402]

Does Marx separate simple from complex labour? There is a part in Capital where he alludes to a difference (he's mentioning the value-added by a jeweler), but then later parts seem to suggest otherwise.

[Anonymous No.11203404]

Leftist false flag

[Anonymous No.11203406]

>>11203397
>If it's rare it must've been hard to obtain
the fallacy of marxists lol. fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.11203409]

But to consider matters more broadly: You would be altogether mistaken in fancying that the value of labour or any other commodity whatever is ultimately fixed by supply and demand. Supply and demand regulate nothing but the temporary fluctuations of market prices. They will explain to you why the market price of a commodity rises above or sinks below its value, but they can never account for the value itself. Suppose supply and demand to equilibrate, or, as the economists call it, to cover each other. Why, the very moment these opposite forces become equal they paralyze each other, and cease to work in the one or other direction. At the moment when supply and demand equilibrate each other, and therefore cease to act, the market price of a commodity coincides with its real value, with the standard price round which its market prices oscillate. In inquiring into the nature of that VALUE, we have therefore nothing at all to do with the temporary effects on market prices of supply and demand. The same holds true of wages and of the prices of all other commodities.

[Anonymous No.11203412]

>>11203397
Think of an unopened first edition iron man comic, easy to make but now its rare. Fuck off commie brainlet

[Anonymous No.11203416]

>>11203397
not necessarily, clearly my signature on something doesnt increase its value as much as obamas or whoever you give a fuck about but it requires the same amount of labor. why has the value increased? why isn't it just the labor?

[Anonymous No.11203418]

>>11203409
Fuck off, no one cares

[Anonymous No.11203424]

He neclectid his children chasing his fairy tale and they died. What a heartless basterd

[Anonymous No.11203426]

>>11203418
>thread about marx
>nobody cares about marx

[Anonymous No.11203428]

>>11203416
Clearly, Marx was right. If a rare book is worth ten thousands times the value of another, it must have taken then thousand times of socially necessary abstract labour time to produce. LOL

[Anonymous No.11203430]

>>11203409
>with its real value
spooky shit mate.
Market equilibrium doesn't reach the same point in every economy for the same commodity.

[Anonymous No.11203444]

>>11203412
For a Marxist theory, it doesn't make sense giving a commodity as an example of it not working. But let's say it's some resource which is hard to find or hard to create. If it's hard to find and obtain doesn't that increase the value? For example, diamonds shouldn't cost as much as they do, but they're owned by a major corporation which can inflate the price and now we all suffer even though they're not even that rare and can be easily created.
>>11203416
Just like the dude before you... That's just a commodity with no value.

[Anonymous No.11203451]

>>11203444
>just ignore it bro
typical marxist.

[Anonymous No.11203453]

>>11203444
>Commodity with no value

what are you even saying?

[Anonymous No.11203457]

People on 4chan take this nutjob seriously? You know literal millions died because of him right?

[Anonymous No.11203461]

Commies should be forced to read Basic Economics

[Anonymous No.11203462]

>>11203451
Ignore what? Commodity fetishism?
>>11203453
Why should his signature hold any value other than material?

[Anonymous No.11203465]

>>11203462

I'm not sure that question makes sense to ask. If someone is willing to pay for it why doesn't it hold value?

[Anonymous No.11203466]

Sure is summer in here. Commies need to leave desu senpai cuck onions

[Anonymous No.11203471]

>>11203462
Cuck

[Anonymous No.11203472]

>>11203462
>it the facts don't agree with my theory, it's just fetishism bro

[Anonymous No.11203473]

Read Marx's ideas about "commodity fetishism".

But, of course, I expect no one will, because no one, not even marxists and anti-marxists, actually reads Marx any further than one or two introductory essays, then just supplement their knowledge with thirt-party summaries, postmodern circle-jerks, and/or Jordan Peterson.

[Anonymous No.11203476]

But dude, *chops up green* Buzzfeed's worth it series (the food series) unironnically states the issues of capitalism *packs bong* in a far more digestible (pun intended) way than Marx *hits bong*

[Anonymous No.11203477]

>>11203457
er

[Anonymous No.11203482]

>>11203473
Commies dont get to have opinions

[Anonymous No.11203487]

>>11203457
As opposed to what fucking ideology/economy?

[Anonymous No.11203488]

>>11203473
Jordan Peterson unironically tears mars a new one

[Anonymous No.11203489]

>>11203473
>yeah bro, just ignore the obvious infinitude of contradictions to his 'law' of value, read on fetishism instead.

[Anonymous No.11203492]

>>11203487
No whataboutism you retard. Nothing can excuse the murderous ideology of communism

[Anonymous No.11203493]

>>11203465
Because marxism isn't capitalism. It's a heavily regulated economic system. The real question is why anyone would want to pay for it.

[Anonymous No.11203495]

>>11203488
Without having read/understood him. Strawmanning the fuck out of mars.

[Anonymous No.11203496]

>>11203493
>It's a heavily regulated economic system
Marxism isn't an economic system you retard.

[Anonymous No.11203501]

>>11203493
>Marxism
>economic system
It's a lens, a perspective my dude. A grand narrative to see the world. If you don't treat it as that then you'll never be able to understand it, and therefor stop it.

[Anonymous No.11203504]

>>11203495
He knows marx better than you

[Anonymous No.11203506]

>>11203409
shut up retard

[Anonymous No.11203508]

>commies on lit

Ewwww

[Anonymous No.11203510]

>>11203493
What?

You're using circular reasoning

[Anonymous No.11203511]

>>11203506

[Anonymous No.11203515]

>>11203496
>>11203501
> muh semantics
For a marxist theory to work a heavily regulated economic system is needed. Is that a more appropriate sentence for you autists?

[Anonymous No.11203516]

>>11203511

[Anonymous No.11203518]

>>11203516

[Anonymous No.11203519]

Why there so many commies on /lit/ isnt it suppost to be the smart board

Marx never had a job yet thouht he could represent workers

[Anonymous No.11203522]

>>11203518
ill post the rest later i cant right now

[Anonymous No.11203523]

Serious but semi-off topic comment: don't you find the structure of OP's criticism of Marx oddly entertaining to read? It should be a new genre of political critique - simply greentext an author's strawman's ideas and people come fucking flocking in. It's the best bait imaginable.

[Anonymous No.11203527]

>>11203508
>>11203519
You know that /leftypol/ was a /lit/ colony, right?

[Anonymous No.11203528]

History proved him wrong look at the ussr china north kora venezuala all failed and famine was wude spread

[Anonymous No.11203531]

>>11203523
it's not a strawman idea, that was his 'law' of value.

[Anonymous No.11203535]

>>11203510
What's circular about it? It's very simple. Something which is a part of one system won't work in a system which doesn't work the same way.

[Anonymous No.11203540]

>>11203515
Marxism and communism aren't the same thing. You can't "do" marxism or "implement" marxism as an economic system. Marxism is primarily the critique of capitalism according to Marx's own writings.

He wrote very little about communism, and communism wasn't even his ideas. You can easily have a communist state which heavily relies on Marxist theory, but marxism and communism simply aren't the same thing, and using the two interchangeably is stupid.

[Anonymous No.11203541]

>>11203527
Fuck off newfag lit was always hated communism

Sure is summer in here

[Anonymous No.11203544]

>>11203535
but it has nothing to do with the system, people value obamas signature more than mine regardless of economic structure

[Anonymous No.11203547]

>>11203541
>Fuck off newfag lit was always hated communism
>hated
Now this is history revisionism. Zizek memes didn't appear out of thin air

[Anonymous No.11203548]

>>11203531
Yes, but his idea of value was different to that of price. A commodity can have value based on the labor required to produce it, but its price can vary drastically based on how much consumers want it and how much capitalists are willing to sell it for.

[Anonymous No.11203551]

>>11203535
marx's """"law"""" of value referred to capitalism. it is false.

[Anonymous No.11203553]

>>11203547
Basedboy

[Anonymous No.11203555]

>>11203522

[Anonymous No.11203562]

>>11203540
>stupid because I said so
Would you like me learn your pronouns too? You can't divide Marxism and communism. Marxist ideas can't be realised without a heavily regulated economy.

[Anonymous No.11203568]

>>11203555

[Anonymous No.11203572]

>>11203568

[Anonymous No.11203575]

>>11203515
says who? the actual work or (you)? (you) being A literal nobody.

[Anonymous No.11203577]

>>11203572

[Anonymous No.11203584]

>>11203572
aaand

[Anonymous No.11203585]

>>11203544
So why does this subjective value have to be a part of economy? Just pay the material price and give it whatever additional value if you want later.
>>11203551
It's used to find and get rid of capitalisms flaws.

[Anonymous No.11203590]

>>11203584
mic drop
imagine still being a marxist

[Anonymous No.11203592]

>>11203575
Ok cunt. GIve me an example of how it could work without regulation without it turning to anarcho-capitalism.

[Anonymous No.11203594]

>>11203585
false laws cannot help you get rid of anything.

[Anonymous No.11203596]

>>11203462
>Why should his signature hold any value other than material?
I don't know, ask whoever pestered him for an autograph.

[Anonymous No.11203598]

>>11203585
>Just pay the material price and give it whatever additional value if you want later.
There we have the retardation of marxists in full display.

[Anonymous No.11203600]

>>11203594
says who? (you)? (you) being A literal nobody.

[Anonymous No.11203601]

>>11203487
>but what about
Fuck off dude

[Anonymous No.11203604]

>>11203585
I think we're done here

[Anonymous No.11203605]

>>11203600
Says all of modern economics. But contradicts me who, (you)? (you) being A literal nobody.

[Anonymous No.11203608]

>>11203409
>its real value
And where does this "real" value come from?

[Anonymous No.11203609]

>>11203592
It's not a theory on economic systems you fool. I don't know how many more times I will need to make myself clear. It's. a. perspective. hon

[Anonymous No.11203617]

>>11203609
It's an absurdity, that's what it is. One that is to economics, what astrology to astronomy, or homeophathy to medicine, or alchemy to chemistry. His """"law"""" of value was rejected and economics moved on long ago. It's about as valid as the aristotelian """law""" of gravity, that heavier objects fall faster.

[Anonymous No.11203623]

>>11203600
(checked)
>>11203617
>It's an absurdity, that's what it is. One that is to economics, what astrology to astronomy, or homeophathy to medicine, or alchemy to chemistry. His """"law"""" of value was rejected and economics moved on long ago. It's about as valid as the aristotelian """law""" of gravity, that heavier objects fall faster.
says who? (you)? (you) being A literal nobody.

[Anonymous No.11203624]

>>11203562
Terms are important. Marxism and communism aren't the same, and no one except lay people claim them to be.

Marxism is a school of thought which primarily critiques capitalism in the tradition of Marx. Marxists TEND (almost always) to support left wing political movements.

The Soviet Union was Marxist because they subscribed to Marx's thought, but they were also communist. A communist country can be non-marxist, and a Marxist doesn't necessarily believe communism is a good idea.

This isn't my own unique take on the matter, buddy. It's pretty much the standard definition in use.

Marx didn't invent communism, it didn't form the bulk of his writing (by any stretch), as most of his writing was concerned with capitalism. Likewise, today, most Marxist theory doesn't even mention communism. Rather, its a set of assumptions about economic determinism and the way power operates.

[Anonymous No.11203627]

>>11203623
Says modern economics. That's a great many people anon!

[Anonymous No.11203631]

>>11203627
>modern economics

[Anonymous No.11203635]

>>11203631
There's a thing called marginalism, you know. It's not like economics got stuck with the labour theory of value, it moved on, that was many years ago!

[Anonymous No.11203639]

>>11203605
>my economy based on capitalism says marxism doesn't work because it wouldn't work like capitalism
Also, I apologise. I wanted to do the (you) thing to >>11203575

[Anonymous No.11203643]

>>11203639
Marx's law of value referred to capitalism anon. Might want to reread your Capital.

[Anonymous No.11203646]

>>11203609
It's a critique of economic theory and a way of thinking about value.

[Anonymous No.11203649]

>>11203643
No shit. But the point is not to create a system like capitalism.

[Anonymous No.11203662]

>>11203649
Capital doesn't mention any alternative system of government/economy.

[Anonymous No.11203667]

>>11203649
Are you retarded anon? His law, contradicted by evidence, is what he based his criticism of capitalism on. Jesus man, I know commies are dumb, but you are on an altogether different level. Well, here's a (you) as payment for the "material value" of your post.

[Anonymous No.11203678]

>>11203662
>>11203667
I wouldn't know. I've never read Marx. Ya'll just got finna dabbed on. Stop shitting up my board with /pol/ threads.

[Anonymous No.11203708]

>>11203667
>Are you retarded anon? His law, contradicted by evidence
The labour theory of value isn't incompatible with objects having inflated price because of demand though.

The argument that Marx was wrong about what constitutes value is basically a semantic argument about what is "value"

It is fairly intuitive that the amount of labour that goes into a product influences its price and the profit margin. The whole issue of supply/demand/commodity fetishism etc about price being inflated because of other means are pretty irrelevant to what Marx observes about 19th century capitalism. ie, the fundamental dynamic between proletariat and capitalist is the same in his theory regardless of whether you introduce marginalism or not.

[Anonymous No.11203733]

>>11203708
Perhaps you should reread your Marx. He explicitly stated that the prices of things was equal to the labour power, not "inflated" by the demand as you say. In fact he even states that precisely because this law is true, the profit could come frome nowhere else but underpayment to the workers. If there were "inflation", as you say, then profits could come from this "inflation" while the workers are paid for the rest and therefore for the whole labour time. Dumb commie.

[Anonymous No.11203740]

>>11203397
Nah not really. You could stumble upon a diamond and it would still be expensive as fuck.

[Anonymous No.11203748]

>>11203444
>For example, diamonds shouldn't cost as much as they do, but they're owned by a major corporation which can inflate the price and now we all suffer even though they're not even that rare and can be easily created.

Imagine being this dumb

[Anonymous No.11203753]

>>11203733
>not "inflated" by the demand as you say
>If there were "inflation", as you say then profits could come from this "inflation" while the workers are paid for the rest and therefore for the whole labour time

In the words of Obi Wan Kenobi, what he said was true, from a certain point of view. But he was using these terms in different ways than we do now, and, still, despite the truth that prices change due to rarity and stuff, it doesn't really affect his arguments about capitalism. To say that Marx thought prices were ONLY influenced by the labour that was put into them would be to misrepresent his writings. You only have to look at what he wrote about commodity fetishism etc to realize that isn't the case.

>Dumb commie
I'm a centrist liberal.

[Anonymous No.11203760]

>>11203388
Dude, things are only produced if people demand them. *hits bong* Oh, what's that? There are things no one wants but succeed because marketing shoves it down their throats? Just ignore them bro, they aren't real.

[Anonymous No.11203771]

>>11203753
Certain point of view my ass. He meant value in the sense of price in a capitalist system in that "law" and he makes it extremely clear, and it is just as clear that his law is totally false. Commodity fetishism my asshole, that has nothing to do with Marx's law of value which is not being misrepresented at all.

>>11203760
Not very much of an argument to defend Marx's """law""" of value.

[Anonymous No.11203801]

>>11203771
Let's put it this way,

If a capitalist starts a business to mine diamonds, he might pay his workers $100 for their labour, but yet charges the public $1000 for the diamonds. He does this because (say for the sake of argument), few people are willing to go into the diamond business because it is a high-risk business, and so he gets a lot of money due to the fact that supply of diamonds is low and demand is high, and he has nearly no competition. Now, lets say that the exact same thing occurred, only that this time, he had to use more workers (or work them longer), which ended up costing him $200 to mine the diamond. He could still sell the diamond for the same price, or he could charge $100 dollars more to make the same amount of profit as he originally did. This is the value according to Marx--the amount of labour that affects the price, the way the outlay affects the potential gap between itself and profit, regardless of external influences such as risk, demand etc, because they are irrelevant to the dynamic between capitalist and worker.

The whole criticism of Marx's idea of labour theory of value has been misguided for a variety of reasons, the most prominent one being that it doesn't really substantially change Marx's theories as applied to his view of capitalism of the 19th century, considering he was primarily concerned with the social outcomes of the economic transactions. But moreover, many of the criticisms are just arguing about semantics, or applying contemporary economic theories (which observe changing, dynamic behaviours in imprecise and subjective ways).

[Anonymous No.11203828]

>>11203801
Let's put it this way,

You are fucking retarded and have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Marx asserted things were paid at a price on average equal to the labour-time, then a part was stolen(profit) and the rest given to the workers. The assertion that things were paid at a price equal to the labour-time required for production is his law of value, and it is contradicted by all evidence. So go fuck yourself imbecile, you dont have a damn idea what the theories you are trying to defend even say because you are a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11203832]

>>11203748
DeBeers is real dumbass

[Anonymous No.11203843]

What an awful fucking thread
Jesus christ what happened to this board

[Anonymous No.11203859]

>>11203843
it is a good thread, it points out the most important fallacy in the thinking of marx, the idea that value is determined by labour-time.

[Anonymous No.11203910]

>>11203492
How about the murderous ideologies of John Locke and Nietzsche?

[Anonymous No.11203918]

Marxist apologists are not interested in coherent theories of profit that actually work, because they do not want to combat economic inequality or poverty or hunger

[Anonymous No.11203943]

>>11203859
*never reads Marx*

[Anonymous No.11203944]

>>11203828
I'm not who you're responding to but I'm just going to interject here because I doubt you've even read Adam Smith/David Ricardo or their explanations of profit:
>"As soon as stock has accumulated in the hands of particular persons, some of them will naturally employ it in setting to work industrious people, whom they will supply with materials and subsistence, in order to make a profit by the sale of their work, or by what their labour adds to the value of the materials... The value which the workmen add to the materials, therefore, resolves itself in this case into two parts, of which one pays their wages, the other the profits of their employer upon the whole stock of materials and wages which he advanced." -- Adam Smith (1976, Book I, Chapter VI)
Marx isn't really dealing with an embodied theory like Smith. Nowhere does Marx claim commodities are ever in actuality paid for "at a price on average equal to their labour-time" or that they should be [someone like Proudhon would want to make this the case]. Marx establishes in volume one of Capital commodity production as a whole is regulated by socially necessary labour time. It's not the nature of things produced but the social relations under which things/services are produced that determines whether labour has been productive of "surplus value" and are actually sold e.g. an artist working for a capitalist in a quasi putting out system would even produce "surplus value" since the price of rare works of art are wholly dependent on the whims of the buyer due to their intrinsic scarcity and would thus not be regulated by their socially necessary labour time but societies.
Marx doesn't even deal with real market prices till you get to volume three of Capital because the discrepancy between the current socially necessary labour time of reproducing any "asset" and the fictitious capitalized "current market value" which characterizes capitalist exchange relations has to take into consideration more complex issues like ground rent and the financial system.

>>11203918
Everything post-classical doesn't even have a real coherent theory of profit, profit is just used as a synonym for earnings regardless of their source i.e. it includes rental income, which classical political economy identified with any old mere monopoly property rights granted by the state.

[Anonymous No.11203960]

>>11203859

>the idea that value is determined by labour-time.

I want you to consider the term "partially", and how it could fit into your sentence in a manner that would render Marx' thought non-retarded, and would be in line with what he actually wrote on the subject rather than an inane strawman.

[Anonymous No.11203962]

>>11203943
Here's your (you) for the "material value" of your post anon. The marxian law of value is still false.

[Anonymous No.11204038]

>>11203944
>Everything post-classical doesn't even have a real coherent theory of profit, profit is just used as a synonym for earnings regardless of their source
Sometimes you wonder: "Why is it that apologists for this stuff used to be killed en masse? How bad can it be?", and then you talk to one. Wake the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.11204048]

>>11203960
>in a manner that would render Marx' thought non-retarded
I think you are asking for impossibles anon.

[Anonymous No.11204099]

Youre letting the bougiouse exploit you for your fucking labour like some bitch ass pucci and youre a fuxxn faggot

[Anonymous No.11204100]

Is he subconsciously trying to be napoleon in that photo with his hand placement

[Anonymous No.11204105]

>>11204100
He has a fucking gackt in his breast pocket for when the pigs come to take away those dank means.

[Anonymous No.11204115]

>>11204100
He was being ironic. Marx hated Napoleon.

[Anonymous No.11204157]

I don't know what the point of this thread is when later marxist theorists have addressed exactly the issue you're "bringing up" here. Haven't you read Veblen before?

[Anonymous No.11204417]

how are there 113 replies and none of them have pointed out that the law of value isn't a theory of market prices. what's wrong with this board.