/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12000196]

You have five seconds to provide an argument against the labour theory of value. Go ahead.

[Anonymous No.12000202]

because it's a lot more than labor that goes into value

[Anonymous No.12000204]

marx was gay

[Anonymous No.12000205]

marx was fat

[Anonymous No.12000213]

capital is sentient

[Anonymous No.12000237]

Was the labor theory of value even profound for its time? It seems very very obvious that the value of a product would be proportional to the labor that went into that product

[Anonymous No.12000241]

>>12000196
Venezuela

[Anonymous No.12000245]

>>12000196
The labour theory of value. Checkmate.

[Anonymous No.12000253]

>>12000196

Ricardo and Smith's Labor Theory of Value is outdated in both cases, but why did you post a picture of Marx? What he did instead was state a Law of Value and ascribed prices to commodities as a function of societal properties more than individual labor in itself (i.e the infamously named "socially necessary" labor time spent in selling your labor force to a capitalist). Also this >>12000213

[Anonymous No.12000258]

>>12000196
My diary desu

[Anonymous No.12000261]

>>12000253
Because no one here has actually studied political economy and OP wanted an excuse to circlejerk about how marx is like, totally dumb!

[Anonymous No.12000262]

>>12000202
there you go.
close this thread now

[Anonymous No.12000263]

>>12000196
marx was a nigger and also a kike and also a material reductionist

[Anonymous No.12000274]

>>12000237
No, Adam smith and David Ricardo were both labor theorists.

[Anonymous No.12000285]

>>12000196
Some things are incredibly valuable but took no labor to produce (precious resources, etc).

Some things are incredibly worthless but took tons of labor to produce (bad art, Karl Marx, etc).

[Anonymous No.12000289]

>>12000196
Plus LTV doesn't have an argument against the idea that value is what people believe it to be, it's just complaining that people don't value things differently.

[Anonymous No.12000303]

>>12000253
there isn't really a non-semantic distinction between the law of value and the labor theory of value. the latter is just how the former is referred to, colloquially. but yes, obviously Marx's law of value is different from Smith and Ricardo's.

[Anonymous No.12000307]

>>12000285
resources have value according to the labour it takes to extract those resources from nature

[Anonymous No.12000309]

>>12000285
noooooooooooooooooooooooo
stop destroying LTV

[Anonymous No.12000313]

>>12000285
for your first point: it takes labor to extract "precious resources."
for your second: "bad art" isn't a freely reproducible good. the LTV is only a theory of restricted set of commodities.

[Anonymous No.12000319]

>>12000307
So you're saying LTV is true, right?

[Anonymous No.12000325]

>>12000319
LTV is a way of defining value, it's not an objective truth

[Anonymous No.12000326]

>labour theory of value is unironically taken seriously

It's only one step away from flat earthism.

[Anonymous No.12000327]

>>12000289
>it's just complaining that people don't value things differently
I'm not even sure what this is trying to say. You think Marx "complains" that people won't necessarily desire a commodity more if more labor was required to produce it?

[Anonymous No.12000329]

>>12000325
Can you make your stance clearer?
Are you a communist? Are you supporting the LTV? What is happening exactly, pls explain.

[Anonymous No.12000331]

>>12000326
not an argument

[Anonymous No.12000332]

>>12000329
I'm natsoc

[Anonymous No.12000335]

>>12000196
Pic related.

[Anonymous No.12000342]

>>12000332
And how do you feel about communism and LTV

[Anonymous No.12000343]

>>12000307
So if you were to artificially increase the amount of labour it takes to extract the resources by, say, replacing technology with more primitive, labour-intensive techniques, the value of those resources would increase?

[Anonymous No.12000345]

The labor theory of value asserts that a goods price is composed of labor, interest, and rent.

It’s a case of being not true because not detailed enough and also doesn’t account for exchange value differences. Marginality destroys it, a simple read of Carl Menger or Léon Walras assures this

[Anonymous No.12000350]

>>12000343
yes

[Anonymous No.12000353]

>>12000335
exploitation isn't an ethical concept for Marx. he believes that, on average, workers get paid a wage that roughly correlates with the value of their labour power. it's not about workers "deserving" surplus value; it's just an analysis of where profit comes from in the capitalist mode of production.

[Anonymous No.12000357]

>>12000307
Resources take equal effort to mine but some are worth more than others because of their uses and/or rarity.

[Anonymous No.12000358]

>>12000343
no. because the socially necessary labor time required to extract the resources would remain unchanged.

[Anonymous No.12000361]

>>12000327
LTV is an "ought," not an "is." It says nothing about reality. Is it "complaining?" Not exactly, but it doesn't say anything about the world either.

[Anonymous No.12000362]

>>12000357
rare resources are more valuable because it takes more labour to find and extract them

[Anonymous No.12000370]

>itt: be a dishonest fuck and pretend that marxism and LTV aren't entirely ethical problems

[Anonymous No.12000372]

>>12000361
I think you should re-read Marx. the LTV is very explicitly a descriptive theory, not a prescriptive one.

[Anonymous No.12000373]

>>12000362
This wasn’t true in California, when all you had to do in order to get gold was put a pan in the river and wait. Labor wasn’t costly then

[Anonymous No.12000381]

>>12000370
well, Marx wasn;t interested in making an ethical argument. that's not to say that the majority of 20th century interpretations of his work by communists sought to make his concept of exploitation an ethical concern. but that's not Marx's fault.

[Anonymous No.12000385]

>>12000373
it still takes time, in LVT, labour is measured in time

[Anonymous No.12000388]

>>12000372
Marx was an economic theorist but most of his modern followers are ideologues, so when we look at an outdated economic theory today we're usually talking about people who are making some value judgment rather than just someone studying the world.

Labor theories of value are disproven if we're taking them literally. They are still relevant today because of discussions about whether price and value are/should be the same.

[Anonymous No.12000390]

>LTV is purely descriptive
No quite, Marx explicitly tells you that labour under capitalism is theft.
The surplus is stolen by the capitalist.

What marxist would deny that?

[Anonymous No.12000396]

1.How do you measure value
2.How do you measure labour
3.How would you compensate each person for their labour?
4.And when you do, with what and how much?

These question on themselves destroy LTV.

[Anonymous No.12000398]

Against? No thanks. I'm not a capitalist supporting cuckold.

[Anonymous No.12000404]

>>12000388
well you're free to criticize the ideologues who follow Marx. but that wouldn't be a criticism of Marx's theories. you still haven't demonstrated how the LTV has been "disproven."

[Anonymous No.12000406]

>>12000196
the value theory of labour, as in marx' actual theory

[Anonymous No.12000408]

It's a tautologi

[Anonymous No.12000413]

>>12000404
Can you post a proof that LTV is real?
Thanks in advance.

[Anonymous No.12000416]

>>12000396
Marx literally answers all of these. goes to show /lit/ doesn't read lmao read Capital

[Anonymous No.12000419]

>>12000196
1. nothing has intrinsic value, it's decided by markets
2. The commodity is not produced solely by the laborer but also by the entire structure set up by the company, including its capital, and by the set of social contracts and laws in place to allow its dissemination into the market

[Anonymous No.12000421]

>>12000416
>read x!!
If you can't explain it then you don't understand it.

[Anonymous No.12000422]

So many retards in this thread that haven't actually read Marx, think the LTV is actually an aesthetic theory. l to the o to the l

[Anonymous No.12000428]

>>12000307
Then why is it so that at low levels of consumption, things commodities such as water have a much higher demand than precious rocks? Marginalism much better describes the water diamond paradox.

[Anonymous No.12000432]

>>12000390
again, I think this is a common misreading of Marx. if by "the surplus is stolen by the capitalist," you mean to say that the worker is entitled to the surplus value he creates, then I think you're misunderstanding the concept of exploitation. it's just that the value that a worker produces is more valuable than the value of his labor-power (which he, on average, will get fairly compensated for through wages).

[Anonymous No.12000433]

>>12000419
>1. nothing has intrinsic value,
Correct. Marx argues as such.
>it's decided by markets
And socially necessary labour time
>2. The commodity is not produced solely by the laborer but also by the entire structure set up by the company, including its capital, and by the set of social contracts and laws in place to allow its dissemination into the market
Correct. Marx argues as such.

[Anonymous No.12000438]

>>12000419
>1. nothing has intrinsic value
WRONG! If a commodity has a value it's becuase someone desire it. They desire the commodity becuase fulfilling ones desire is an inttrinsic value

> 2. The commodity is not produced solely by the laborer but also by the entire structure set up by the company, including its capital, and by the set of social contracts and laws in place to allow its dissemination into the market
Yes and all commodities are produced by the same super structure but what differentiates them is the total time put into a certain resource by the workers. If not, all products would remain at the same costs.

[Anonymous No.12000439]

>>12000428
>commodities
are you sure you're using that word in the sense marx used it? running water is (great effort by some corporations aside) not a commodity because it is not produced for exchange.

[Anonymous No.12000440]

If capitalists steal from you so much then why don't you:
1.Do it by yourself, I'm sure you'll get 20 millions/per year
2.Create a CooP and you can share that 20 million divide by 20.
Not bad.

Off you go.
Oh wait, you can't.
Because there is an emergent property that transcendents the labourer and the capitalist, it's the structure.

[Anonymous No.12000442]

>>12000396
>1.How do you measure value
In quantities of unskilled labour.
>2.How do you measure labour.
Through time.
>3.How would you compensate each person for their labour?
In a socialist society? You wouldn't.
>4.And when you do, with what and how much?
See above.

[Anonymous No.12000444]

How can a "theory of value" be correct or incorrect? Since it's value and not "price", isn't it entirely on the eye of the beholder whence that value comes from?

[Anonymous No.12000445]

>>12000444
individuals are not subjects, silly

[Anonymous No.12000446]

>>12000432
What is this mental gymnastics.
Marxs raved about exploitation using his LTV.
But according to you it's a misreading.
You're a goddamn genius.

[Anonymous No.12000447]

>>12000439
You tell me pal do you understand him? Water is scarce, commands a price and is transferrable therefore it is an economic good.

[Anonymous No.12000451]

>>12000444
Because, you literal retard, it's not an aesthetic theory. He's not arguing why one painting is better than another.

READ

[Anonymous No.12000454]

>>12000447
>Water is scarce
literally the air is full of water. i can place a price on air but that doesn't make it a commodity.

[Anonymous No.12000455]

>>12000419
>1. nothing has intrinsic value
Marx agrees. The value of a commodity can certainly change over time.
>it's decided by markets.
If by "value" here you mean "marker price," then yes, Marx agrees.
>2. The commodity is not produced solely by the laborer but also by the entire structure set up by the company, including its capital, and by the set of social contracts and laws in place to allow its dissemination into the market
Marx doesn't disagree with any of this.

[Anonymous No.12000456]

>>12000438
>what differentiates them is the total time put into a certain resource by the workers
The superstructure's particular formation influences it as well

[Anonymous No.12000457]

>>12000447

>water is scarce

Artificially, yeah. Thanks, capitalism.

[Anonymous No.12000465]

>>12000446
If you haven't actually read Capital and you're just getting your info on Marx through what communists you know have said, then I definitely don't blame you for thinking exploitation is an ethical concept. It's how the theory has been interpreted by probably the majority of communists for well over a century now.

[Anonymous No.12000466]

>>12000454
What a fucking retard argument, your economic fundementals are clearly lacking. The point is that it is SCARCE IN SUPPLY. Yes you can get autistic and say "well atoms are infinite!!", but we are talking actual real world supply.

[Anonymous No.12000468]

>>12000442
>1.How do you measure value
>In quantities of unskilled labour.
How do you quantify unskilled labour?

>2.How do you measure labour.
>Through time.
Only time? So if a person puts effort and energy to accomplish 10 things, another person does the same thing much slower and accomplishes 2 things in the same job. So in the same 8 hours the first person was 5 times more productive but according to you it's the same.
amazin

>3.How would you compensate each person for their labour?
>In a socialist society? You wouldn't.
>4.And when you do, with what and how much?
>See above.

MINDBLOWN WOW..oh yeah
You forgot something, you still have to distribute things to people.
Food and clothing etc.
Also, what would happen with """"luxury"""" items like computers video games chocolate obscure music dance lessons.
What if I want 100 books and not just the state approved 2 books per year?
I could list a billion things wrong with that.
These are fine for now.
Fire away based commie.

[Anonymous No.12000483]

>>12000456
Which is caused by the amount of work put in.

[Anonymous No.12000487]

>>12000454
Commies are literally denying the existence of economic goods now? If you actually read Capital you would know Marx himself subscribes to the definition of a good.

[Anonymous No.12000489]

>>12000465
me: marx is all ethical about exploitation and LTV
you: no it's just a misreading
me: but he raves about exploitation
you: you're brainwashed bc you think exploitation is good


Thanks for completely destroying your own posts.

[Anonymous No.12000490]

>>12000468
>How do you quantify unskilled labour?
A very convoluted formula. But the basic idea is that quantities of skilled labour can be reduced to quantities of unskilled labour.
>Only time? So if a person puts effort and energy to accomplish 10 things, another person does the same thing much slower and accomplishes 2 things in the same job. So in the same 8 hours the first person was 5 times more productive but according to you it's the same.
This is where the idea of "socially necessary labor time" comes in. Meaning, the average amount of time it takes all firms in a particular sector to produce a certain commodity. If firms are taking longer (due to inefficiency) or shorter (due to the implementation of labour-saving technology) to produce a commodity, they balance each other out.

[Anonymous No.12000492]

>>12000468
(not him but)
>How do you quantify unskilled labour?
You don't need to
>Only time?
Socially necessary labour time.
>What if I want 100 books and not just the state approved 2 books per year?
There is no state in a communist society
>I could list a billion things wrong with that.
The things you've listed weren't problems at all

[Anonymous No.12000495]

>>12000466
>we are talking actual real world
i bet you also believe capitalism is only natural

[Anonymous No.12000497]

>>12000483
It's also caused by things like the invention of technologies, the way people decide to structure the hierarchical systems that make up society, the efficiency with which people manage these systems, etc.

[Anonymous No.12000499]

Kardashian sucked a dick and Is a millionaire

[Anonymous No.12000501]

>>12000489
>you: you're brainwashed bc you think exploitation is good
When did he ever say that?

[Anonymous No.12000503]

>>12000487
idk man i have unlimited access to drinking tap water for nonmarket prices, what kind of capitalist distopia are you living in?

[Anonymous No.12000507]

>>12000497
Correct. This is all accounted for in the LTV

[Anonymous No.12000508]

>>12000202
Like what? And don't try to claim human thought isn't a form of human labor

[Anonymous No.12000511]

>>12000489
I never said you were brainwashed because you think exploitation is good. I'm saying that simply pointing out that "he raves about exploitation" isn't an argument for the interpretation that it's an ethical concept. You'd have to provide evidence.

[Anonymous No.12000515]

>>12000492
>How do you quantify unskilled labour?
>You don't need to
I know but that's his claim, you can't answer something that I didn't claim.
You're essentially agreeing with me on this one.


>Only time?
>Socially necessary labour time.
Again if we work the same hours but you put x10 more effort and produce much more, only because you're lazy, are we doing equal labour?
Answer please.

>What if I want 100 books and not just the state approved 2 books per year?
>There is no state in a communist society
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA I fucking lost it.

>I could list a billion things wrong with that.
>The things you've listed weren't problems at all
Sure thing.

You're sick.

[Anonymous No.12000516]

>>12000507
how though, if one big brained nigga invents the steam engine, that has nothing to do with normal labour, that revolutionizes the entire fucking industry

if one other guy decides to reorganize how his workers work, and this raises productivity 50%, that's not the worker's labor, that's just some idea he had, which may have taken him all of 30 minutes to come up with

[Anonymous No.12000519]

>>12000511
IT IS AN ETHICAL CONCEPT TO FUCKING MARX
That was the fucking claim. you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.12000524]

>>12000516
LTV is about socially necessary labour time, which is the socially average time required to produce something. it's explained in the first 30 pages of Capital using exactly the argument you are using. just read 30 pages ffs.

[Anonymous No.12000528]

>>12000499
This doesn't disprove anything. Marx never said value couldn't change hands. Obviously the strength in being a millionaire derives from being able to buy nearly anything you want, ie any product of human labor you can afford. Without the exploitation of some class you can never have a higher class, even Nietzsche claimed this. All your point does is prove that there is a higher class that still exists today (not even saying this is a bad thing that's a different discussion). Even if the upper class is decadent, like in the case of big booty Kardashian, it still presupposes some lower class which allow for such decadence.

[Anonymous No.12000530]

>>12000519
it's a scientific concept, you imbecile, to explain how capitalist production works. if you had read what he says, you would know that it provides an accurate description of economy.

[Anonymous No.12000532]

>>12000495
Yeah just step right over my actual point. Maybe you should be reading an econ textbook for teenagers instead of jumping to Capital. The whole point of the LTV is the notion that economic goods can be measured objectively (although not transhistorically which is key). If a good is scarce then it will be demanded. We use language to defer conflict. To defer conflict over goods we negotiate a trade. For that trade to take place the good in question must be supplied. If that supply is scarce in accordance to the demand then it is an economic good (provided it is transferrable and commands a price). If water was extracted regularly then it would not be an economic good.
Jesus explaining basic econ to incredulous pseud retards is painful.

[Anonymous No.12000534]

>>12000515
>I know but that's his claim, you can't answer something that I didn't claim.
It's not because you don't actually have to measure what the value is, only that it moves
>Again if we work the same hours but you put x10 more effort and produce much more, only because you're lazy, are we doing equal labour?
It's an average taken across the whole society
>HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA I fucking lost it.
why. This is basic.

[Anonymous No.12000538]

>>12000524
WHAT HAPPENS IF I DON"T WORK THE SOCIALLY NECESSARY LABOUR TIME?????????

Sry but this is how marxists can only read/understand sentences.

[Anonymous No.12000539]

>>12000516
Right. And once every other firm in that sector adapts by adopting whatever that guy came up with, the labor time required to produce whatever good they produce will be lower, and therefore the value will be lower.

[Anonymous No.12000547]

I don't understand why people have such a hard time accepting this theory. You can still be a die-hard capitalist and accept this theory. Some would say society cannot function without some degree of exploitation, as this is the differential that allows for the accumulation of human labor.

[Anonymous No.12000548]

>>12000538
ironically you seem to have not made it past the first sentence of my comment.

[Anonymous No.12000549]

>>12000538
you get fired

[Anonymous No.12000552]

>>12000516
Yup. It's called capital accumulation.

[Anonymous No.12000553]

>>12000519
I understand that's your claim. I'm saying that you have to provide evidence instead of repeating the claim. No need to be rude on an anime forum

[Anonymous No.12000555]

>>12000503
Imagine writing this down, filling out a captcha and hitting enter. It was enough to get down to the level of retard with the other guy, I am not getting down to vegatable level with you.

[Anonymous No.12000556]

>>12000548
AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>12000549
AHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA

Goddamn imagine being you.
I can't. I bet neither can you.

[Anonymous No.12000562]

>>12000553
BECAUSE EXPLOITATION BY DEFINITION IS """"BAD"""" THAT'S WHAT THE WORD MEANS.
AND MARX USES THAT WORD TO DESCRIBE IT.

THANK YOU.

[Anonymous No.12000563]

>>12000556
not an argument

[Anonymous No.12000566]

>>12000524
>the socially average time required to produce something
which is changed by new technologies right? Does our big brained nigga not get compensated for his massive contributions to humanity's resources?

[Anonymous No.12000567]

>>12000538
The socially necessary labor time is just the manifestation of competition. The fact that decreasing this allows for greater profits is what has driven capitalism. This is why all industries are trending toward automation, to lower than time (and to do so in an effective and efficient manner).

[Anonymous No.12000571]

>>12000566
if only it was the contributors that got compensated, and not the capitalists...

[Anonymous No.12000572]

>>12000508
Sentimental value and aesthetic value

[Anonymous No.12000574]

>>12000563
it wasn't.
I don't need arguments to counter non-arguments.

[Anonymous No.12000580]

>>12000572
t-that too is l-labour hahahh

[Anonymous No.12000586]

>>12000571
That is how the patent system is supposed to work. I get that the capitalist usually win out.

As an aside do modern Marxists talk much about how the banking system seems to have somewhat beaten out monopoly capitalists in the 20th century? Like with fiat currency and the fed reserve and etc, it seems like they're really the top swindler at the moment not the capitalists.

[Anonymous No.12000593]

>>12000566
Exactly! And the labour time goes down without the worker's wages going up, thereby polarising the workers and the capitalists further

[Anonymous No.12000595]

the value theory of labor

[Anonymous No.12000598]

>>12000572
Wouldn't those determine price and not value?

[Anonymous No.12000603]

>>12000562
So your argument is that because "exploitation" is colloquially used to mean something bad, the 19C German equivalent of it that is being used by Marx as a technical term must necessarily imply that he thinks what he is describing is unfair to the worker?

[Anonymous No.12000605]

>>12000598
AHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.12000606]

>>12000605
I'm asking.

[Anonymous No.12000607]

>>12000196
Value is the bait or fright factor effectiveness. Cocaine addicts value cocaine more than any amount of work and potentially more than their morality.
Likewise a murder is only 10-12 years here but I still haven't murdered my school bully due to fear.

[Anonymous No.12000611]

>>12000607
What the fuck are you talking about

[Anonymous No.12000612]

>>12000607
You're equivocating on "value." It's not being used in a colloquial sense.

[Anonymous No.12000614]

>>12000607
>Value is the bait or fright factor effectiveness

[Anonymous No.12000619]

>>12000603
Fuck it.

You're right.
Marx didn't imply "exploitation" is bad at all.
He was completely ok with capitalists taking the surplus.
Nothing ethical about it at all, he didn't imply anything with that, he just mentioned it for the keks.
You're right once more.

Marx: "Capitalists taking surplus from works is morally neutral lmao ;pp"
Direct quote from his magnum opus.
Damn, you were really right, I admit defeat.
I now will convert to Marxism now.
Thank you, see you on the revolution comrade :)

[Anonymous No.12000620]

>>12000586
yes, the hegemonic fraction of capital today is financial capital, in contrast to industrial capital which was dominant at the time of marx's writing. this is part of the reason marx's theory is not complete.

[Anonymous No.12000622]

>>12000385
That’s Marx, not the LTV.

Say I happened to strike gold instantly though?

[Anonymous No.12000630]

Things don't have value, and price is entirely subjective
that said, fuck porkies

[Anonymous No.12000633]

>>12000622
the value is still the societal average of labour it takes to get gold

[Anonymous No.12000634]

>>12000619
He probably meant it to have moral overtones but it plays no part in the theory, which is purely scientific.
Not hard to understand.

[Anonymous No.12000637]

>>12000606
You're right friend.
You're correct.

You completely BTFO'd that other dude.
I'm with you on this one.

[Anonymous No.12000639]

>>12000637
you're not helping your case

[Anonymous No.12000644]

>>12000630

[Anonymous No.12000645]

>>12000634
Yup, yup yup yup yup
This. ltrly this.
Correct af.
This is it bois, we did it.
I fucking love your post man.

[Anonymous No.12000654]

>>12000644
BASED

[Anonymous No.12000655]

>>12000645
ty

[Anonymous No.12000657]

>>12000619
Remember, I was just saying that he doesn't say exploitation is unfair (or fair, for that matter) for the worker. But he doesn't think it's "okay" insofar as he thinks the capitalist mode of production is unsustainable, and therefore not "okay."

[Anonymous No.12000661]

>>12000639
I'm agreeing with you, I was wrong and better arguments cleared up my mind.
I now stand with you : )

[Anonymous No.12000662]

>>12000645
You should really stop posting and go for a walk.

[Anonymous No.12000664]

>>12000657
Nah man You don't have to explain yourself, you were completely right.
I stand with you.

[Anonymous No.12000667]

>>12000619
marx's argument in Capital Volume 1 is that the process of capital accumulation creates a vast class of people possessing nothing, living in ever increasing destitution. this is historically what was happening in 19th century england. this is still happening today, only that most of the proletariat are now living in the third world. according to marx, the tensions arising between this class and the class of capitalists would eventually lead to some sort of revolution, similar to how feudalism was ended in france.

the fact that this has not happened in europe in the 1890s as he predicted does in no way diminish the scientific value of his theory, including his understanding of exploitation. he even improved on this theory in his later works.

it probably wasn't worth it to write this out.

[Anonymous No.12000672]

>>12000662
Yupyupyup
This, so much!

[Anonymous No.12000677]

screeching at this tard, tbqh

[Anonymous No.12000683]

>make argument for LTV to a capitalist
>"lol read Adam Smith you dumb commie!"
>Adam Smith created the LTV
Why does this happen every time? Stop making this argument, its dumb.

[Anonymous No.12000685]

>>12000633
The longer it takes the less Gold you get usually. Societal avg is still around 5 sec.

Where do you draw the line? I’m not seeing it

[Anonymous No.12000688]

>>12000667
yup yup
this
completely right
this desu I'm liking this post

[Anonymous No.12000702]

So, just to recap, what went on in this thread:

- Every "argument" presented against the LTV was either a) equivocating on a technical term Marx uses, b) accusing Marx of saying something he never said, and actually disagreed with, or c) asking for clarification, rather than trying to refute the theory.

- the main anti-LTV guy in this thread is now, uh, ironically pretending to agree with it now (?) as like a joke (?)

well done everybody

[Anonymous No.12000712]

>>12000702
See
>>12000685

I’ll love to see where you go with this.

Do you actually think the LTV says Labor=price of the good???

[Anonymous No.12000713]

>>12000702
yup
great summary
all anti-ltvs are fuckign djummies lmao
gr8 post

[Anonymous No.12000718]

>>12000702
The liberals are simply not sending their best, this is embarrassing

[Anonymous No.12000723]

>>12000539
but what about the invetion and itself and teh guy who came up with it?

youre just jumping right into 'when everybdoy has adopted it' without remarking on its invention in the first place

the manager's reorganization is even more pertinent because it may well not be adopted by all companies

[Anonymous No.12000724]

>>12000718
I literally screamed upon reading this
not even ironic.

Reminds me of the days I was an edgy atheist and was BTFOing religious people but they were so fucking stupid it made me lose it every time and ended up just agreeing like an insane person so I don't kill myself.

Nostalgia'd

[Anonymous No.12000726]

>>12000685
>>12000712
(not him but)
It still takes labour to turn it into a commodity.
And what line do you mean?
>Do you actually think the LTV says Labor=price of the good???
Absolutely NOT. This is a common misunderstanding.

[Anonymous No.12000731]

>>12000724
Or to avoid admitting you're wrong ...

[Anonymous No.12000737]

>>12000724
please calm down anon

[Anonymous No.12000739]

>>12000712
Couldn't really follow your discussion with that other guy, sorry; not sure what you're saying.
>Do you actually think the LTV says Labor=price of the good???
No. Value is distinguished from price in the LTV. The idea is that, on aggregate, prices will roughly correlate with value (i.e., the amount of socially necessary labor time it took to produce the good), not that everyone in a market will always pay more for a good because more labor was spent creating it.

[Anonymous No.12000744]

>yfw commies,flat earthes, wicca witches etc exist
Motivated reasoning and rationalizing really can make anyone believe into anything.

[Anonymous No.12000750]

>>12000731
bingo!!!!!!!!! you destroyed me!
>>12000737
I will calm down only when communism^tm prevails.

[Anonymous No.12000758]

>>12000723
Not sure what your point is. Before everyone has adopted certain labor-saving technology/strategy, whichever firm adopts it first (or "invents" it. as you're saying) will have an advantage on the other firms in the sector, and will be able to sell their version of the product for a price below it's value.

[Anonymous No.12000761]

>>12000744
Reasoning and rationality is what you're SUPPOSED to use when deciding what to belief, you absolute badger

[Anonymous No.12000771]

>>12000761
le ebin troll

Clearly motivated reasoning is same as reasoning and rationalizing is same with rationality :))
but I bet he doesn't know that amirite comrade : ))

[Anonymous No.12000775]

>>12000761
not him but pls be ironic or at tell me that you're a capitalist cuck so I can ignore you

[Anonymous No.12000782]

>>12000758
>"invents"
why the scare quotes. People do invent things m8, you are aware of this right

But what about say Henry Ford's little maneuvres in his auto industry, sweeping up all the workers by giving them better deals. THat sort of thing is in constant flux in the competition for labor

also its not 'below value', it is changing the value, because of the new method of production

[Anonymous No.12000785]

>>12000739
>Value is distinguished from price in the LTV
It’s not. Unless you’re talking about Marx’s LTV.

Prices will correlate with value, but that’s what most economists say, not just Marx buddy.
See
>>12000345

[Anonymous No.12000790]

>>12000775
Sure thing, I go by the name "Anonymous"

[Anonymous No.12000796]

>>12000790
kys capitacuck

[Anonymous No.12000804]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#Criticisms

[Anonymous No.12000810]

>>12000782
>why the scare quotes. People do invent things m8, you are aware of this right
Didn't mean for them to be scare quotes, sorry. Was just trying to relate it back to how you were phrasing it.
>But what about say Henry Ford's little maneuvres in his auto industry, sweeping up all the workers by giving them better deals. THat sort of thing is in constant flux in the competition for labor
Not familiar with this. By "better deals" do you mean higher proportional wages? If it doesn't affect the amount of time it takes to produce a good, it has no relevance to value.
>also its not 'below value', it is changing the value, because of the new method of production
For Marx, it would be below value. It would only change value once enough of the other firms caught up to the first firm to adopt the labor-saving technology, thereby changing the socially necessary labor time.

[Anonymous No.12000812]

>>12000196
its plainly true, and ive made threads defending it many times but the brainlets here dont get it
t. racist reactionary

[Anonymous No.12000817]

>>12000785
We are, I think, talking about Marx's LTV in this thread. Marx thinks prices correlate with value ON AGGREGATE, roughly.

[Anonymous No.12000820]

>>12000817
So do ALLL ECONOMISTSSSS you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.12000828]

>>12000810
Well this is the issue isn't it we don't define value the same way. if one firm has a new method of production doesn't this change the average amount of labour necessary to produce the commodity?

[Anonymous No.12000829]

>>12000820
Okay. What's your point?

[Anonymous No.12000834]

1) What do LTV actually do?
2) What it does better than alternatives?

[Anonymous No.12000837]

>>12000829
Nothing except the labor theory of value is incorrect because it only looks at wages, rent, and interest, which was the original post I pointed to, and doesn’t appreciably make a distinction between the profitability of the different labor or equipment employed.

[Anonymous No.12000843]

>>12000828
>Well this is the issue isn't it we don't define value the same way
That's right. I'm just trying to explain Marx's conception of value.
> if one firm has a new method of production doesn't this change the average amount of labour necessary to produce the commodity?
You'd think, but for Marx value is socially constructed. So no, until the other firms catch up and start making their version of the product in a shorter amount of time, the socially necessary labor time for the product won't be significantly changed.

[Anonymous No.12000851]

>labour is valuable
LMAO

I bet you also bridged the is-ought gap.
Marx is Sam Harris tier.

[Anonymous No.12000856]

>>12000843
what is the difference between value and price then?

[Anonymous No.12000861]

Value has any meaning only taken as a price.
Otherwise value takes a metaphysical nonsense form that can't be operationalized in any way.
aka a meaningless term.

[Anonymous No.12000862]

>>12000196
SNLT is a dumb canard used to prop up an antiquated paradigm that was in its dying gasps by the 1860s.

[Anonymous No.12000867]

>>12000837
From what I remember, Marx doesn't go too into depth about rent and interest, but it seems to me those factors would make up the cost of production, which fluctuates around value. That covers the C and the V, but you're leaving out the S.
> doesn’t appreciably make a distinction between the profitability of the different labor or equipment employed
Could you expand on this?

[Anonymous No.12000876]

>>12000856
The easiest way to think about it is that value is a sort of centre of gravity around which market prices fluctuate. The value is determined by the SNLT required to produce it, and the market prices are (directly) determined by supply and demand.

[Anonymous No.12000879]

>>12000876
can you give an example?

[Anonymous No.12000880]

>>12000843
>won't be significantly changed.
but itaking into account theentire society it would be changed wouldn't it?

Think about Amazon, they do things quite diffrently than most of their competitiors and theyre so important that they do influence the market dramatically, isn't this an example of what Im talking about?

[Anonymous No.12000888]

>>12000856
price is value expressed in money.

[Anonymous No.12000890]

>>12000888
But then what IS value?
You imply a meaning but I don't get it.
How would you define value?

[Anonymous No.12000893]

it assumes that there are never works who cost the firm money

[Anonymous No.12000894]

>>12000867
Both rent and interest are surplus value not C or V.

[Anonymous No.12000900]

>>12000890
value is the relation between commodities present in a trade. for trade to take place, the value of commodities being traded needs to be the same (usually the exchange-value of one commodity is traded for the use-value of another). it is commonly measured in socially necessary labour time.

[Anonymous No.12000905]

>>12000851
nobody thinks human action has intrinsic value

[Anonymous No.12000907]

>>12000879
Sure. Suppose that there are only three firms producing chairs. One takes 2 hours to produce a single chair, another takes 4, and the other takes 6. The SNLT required to make a chair in this society would be 4 hours. But, because the first firm (for whatever reason) only takes 2 hours to make a single chair, they're gonna be able to sell it for below its value. (This is a crude example and isn't how it actually functions in capitalist economies because the amount of time each firm would take would be a lot closer to each other, and the third firm would have gone out of business a while ago. But it's just to express the idea of it.)

[Anonymous No.12000910]

>>12000598
Price comes from value, anon.

[Anonymous No.12000925]

This has been a pretty alright thread, I appreciate everyone that's made serious responses. Sorry I don't have anything to add on the topic of LTV, but it's because I still don't really understand it. Any recommended reading for someone that's had a copy of Capital on their shelf for years and never worked up the courage to touch it? I'd like to understand Marxist theory and be able to talk about it but just picking up and reading Capital seems to be getting me nowhere.

[Anonymous No.12000933]

>>12000925
Michael Heinrich - An introduction to the three volumes of Karl Marx's Capital

https://leandromarshall.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/heinrich-michael-an-introduction-to-the-three-volumes-of-karl-marxs-capital.pdf

[Anonymous No.12000935]

>>12000880
>Think about Amazon, they do things quite diffrently than most of their competitiors and theyre so important that they do influence the market dramatically, isn't this an example of what Im talking about?
Well, Amazon is chiefly a distribution company, no? so I'm not sure how they'd fit into the theory. But sure, by whatever means they "do things quite differently" would allow them to sell their products below their value, and I'd assume that's a big reason why they lead the market.

[Anonymous No.12000942]

>>12000894
According to Marx? or other theorists?

[Anonymous No.12000944]

>>12000900
So value is measured in necessary labour time.
Which is the average time required to complete a product.

So value is the time and effort (on average an x amount of effort will be put) put in creation of a product.
So far so good.

So if it takes about 100 hours to create a chair, that chair has 100V (value).
Now it's getting much clearer.

How would you measure post-modern performance art, would the state/society/commune allow someone to do such things?
What if everyone wants to do their own thing but it isn't contributing to food/utilities/etc

[Anonymous No.12000947]

>>12000907
So the value is based on how good those firms are?
What if they all decide to do it at 10 hours a chair? The new value of chair is 10 hours?

[Anonymous No.12000949]

>>12000935
>below their value
I dont get how it's 'below value' and not just changing the value

I also don,t see the difference between goods and services

pretty sure we're at an impasse lad, so maybe we should leave it here, I think we're going in circles

[Anonymous No.12000960]

It took my a good deal of time and effort to create this sandpaper dildo, but somehow nobody wants to give me anything in exchange for it... Me no understand....

[Anonymous No.12000962]

>>12000196
the theory of value by itself doesn't account for most objects in a market economy and has a strong bias towards safe investment (but why would safe investment be bad). also, your image should be of Adam Smith, not Marx.

[Anonymous No.12000969]

>>12000947
>What if they all decide to do it at 10 hours a chair?
Theoretically, yes. But in the capitalist mode of production, firms try to produce things in as little time as possible, in order to gain advantage on their competitors, right?

[Anonymous No.12000971]

>>12000196
Two people can value a thing in differing amounts therefore no material factor - such as the amount of labour that goes into producing it - can be a complete explanation of its 'value.'

[Anonymous No.12000976]

>>12000969
>right?
Yes?
Not sure if I follow.
Will there be competitive markets in communism?

[Anonymous No.12000980]

>>12000949
>I dont get how it's 'below value' and not just changing the value
Because value is socially constructed, according to Marx. The value of a good isn't determined by how fast (humanly possible) the fastest worker can produce it
>I also don,t see the difference between goods and services
The LTV applies to a restricted set of goods.
>pretty sure we're at an impasse lad, so maybe we should leave it here, I think we're going in circles
Yeah probably. Thanks for engaging in good faith, anyway

[Anonymous No.12000982]

>>12000980
>The LTV applies to a restricted set of goods.
what kind of theory do you use for the other goods?

[Anonymous No.12000989]

>>12000944
>How would you measure post-modern performance art, would the state/society/commune allow someone to do such things?

Marx's analysis of value applies to commodities. I wouldn't be very quick to categorize art as a commodity. Maybe you could say art has a social function which makes it a need, therefore pieces of art have a use value. In this case, standard marxian arguments apply... the value of a piece of art is the average time required to produce it (paint a painting, produce a play and so on). This is not to say that it's aesthetic appeal can also be measured in hours. I don't think Marx discusses the "value", as in artistic value, of art.

The point is that someone needs to put his time into producing art and that this someone also needs to eat and sleep and so on. So he wants to get paid at least enough to make a decent living (whatever that means).

>what if no one wants to contribute to society
i don't see why this would be a concern. the majority of history wasn't capitalism and yet most people "contributed to society", whatever that means.

[Anonymous No.12000992]

>>12000976
No.

[Anonymous No.12000996]

>>12000992
So what was your point?
Because I can't make sense of it in a communist framework.

Who would make sure people aren't slacking off? Since there isn't a profit motive and competition.

[Anonymous No.12001001]

>>12000196
Nigga I dont read I only get dubs.
If this works will be BIG.

[Anonymous No.12001008]

>>12000982
>what kind of theory do you use for the other goods?
On second thought, delivery services might be considered commodities, under Marxism. Not totally sure though.

But with respect to things like art, copyrighted goods, etc., the LTV only applies to a certain extent. It doesn't deny that people are gonna pay more or less for the same piece of art depending on how much they like it, or that people will play inflated prices to a company that has a monopoly on a certain trademarked good.

[Anonymous No.12001022]

>>12000989
I really didn't understand your point at all.
Can you elaborate?
In capitalist societies there's tons of people who want to be musicians and whatnot but they're forced to work at mcdonalds or something.
What if all those people instead started painting and making music etc.

>i don't see why this would be a concern. the majority of history wasn't capitalism and yet most people "contributed to society", whatever that means.
What? Doesn't what Marx's strict definition of capitalism, they still had markets of sorts.
Profit was their motive mainly.

People owned stuff, they bought and sold, they had professions etc.
Are you being ironic?

[Anonymous No.12001026]

>>12000996
The factory director? In socialism, there's still people in charge.

[Anonymous No.12001029]

>>12001008
But I'm sure you can see the world is complex and commodities isn't everything, what happens to the rest of it?

[Anonymous No.12001030]

>>12000996
If able workers refuse to work they won't get their share of the social wealth.

[Anonymous No.12001043]

>>12001026
Are you talking about ancom or a socialist state?

How does the factory director enforce the rules?
What happens if I don't agree with the rules? Lets say I'm vegan but the only available job is at slaughterhouses, an example.

[Anonymous No.12001044]

>>12000996
>So what was your point? Because I can't make sense of it in a communist framework.
The LTV is only a descriptive theory of capitalism. It says nothing about how things should operate under communism.
>Who would make sure people aren't slacking off? Since there isn't a profit motive and competition.
I don't know, really. I don't think I've read enough about theorizations of communist societies to comment on that.

[Anonymous No.12001051]

>>12001030
>>12001026
You two gave two different answers.
You too being socialists, how would you reconcile that difference in opinion?

[Anonymous No.12001059]

>>12001044
>The LTV is only a descriptive theory of capitalism. It says nothing about how things should operate under communism.

From 99% of comments here I get a totally different vibe.

Suppose that's true, then how is value and labour measured in communist societies?

[Anonymous No.12001067]

>>12001029
I'm not sure what you mean "what happens to the rest of it." The LTV, in itself, doesn't propose anything, normatively. Marx, I think, would think that the abolition of commodity production in general would be necessary if we want to implement a sustainable mode of production.

[Anonymous No.12001081]

>>12001059
>From 99% of comments here I get a totally different vibe.
Yeah, I can't speak for the other socialists in this thread. I don't necessarily agree with the answers >>12001030 and >>12001026 gave.
>Suppose that's true, then how is value and labour measured in communist societies?
They wouldn't be "measured," I don't think. Without commodity production, things would be produced primarily for use, not exchange.

[Anonymous No.12001083]

>>12001043
Socialist. I'm not an ancom, I don't believe its possible to get rid of the state until class conflict ends.

>Lets say I'm vegan but the only available job is at slaughterhouses, an example.
Then you get a different job?

[Anonymous No.12001098]

>>12001008
>On second thought, delivery services might be considered commodities, under Marxism. Not totally sure though.
In Capital, Volume 2, Marx explains transport as increasing the price of the commodity, but not it's value. This can be viewed as a cost for the capital in commodity form to become capital in money form, the most difficult process in the circulation of capital.

>What? Doesn't what Marx's strict definition of capitalism, they still had markets of sorts. Profit was their motive mainly.
It didn't want to come across as ironic. Mainly I would object to this. This is also one of Marx's biggest objections to political economy: that it projects the categories of capitalism (profits, namely) to past societies. Sure, merchants existed before capitalism, but the general process of production was not aimed at trade. For example, in feudalism the most important product was food -- not for trade, but for maintaining armies. Only under capitalism is production the production of commodities meant to be traded in a market for profit.

As far as artists are concerned: someone like Wilde would say that artistic expression is only possible in a society where people aren't, as you say, required to work as wage labourers. His argument is moral, Marx's, however, is not. I'm not sure if I'm answering your question though. I just wanted to say, as someone else pointed out, that LTV applies to commodities meant to be sold in a market. There exist things that aren't commodities: art, healthcare, family and so on. LTV doesn't have much to say about those.

>>12001059
>Suppose that's true, then how is value and labour measured in communist societies?
Value is not a category that applies to communism, that's Marx's entire point.

[Anonymous No.12001116]

>>12001098
>Wilde would say that artistic expression is only possible in a society where people aren't, as you say, required to work as wage labourers
This means Michaelangelo's David is not art

[Anonymous No.12001125]

>>12001116
but michelangelo wasn't a wage labourer???????'

[Anonymous No.12001127]

>>12001125
but he basically was? He was given commissions and he was given resources in exchange for creating stuff for his patrons

[Anonymous No.12001138]

>>12001098
>Value is not a category that applies to communism, that's Marx's entire point.
So then what's all the fuss about?

I thought the problem was that the surplus value was being stolen.
And now you say it doesn't matter?

[Anonymous No.12001145]

>>12001083
>only available job

[Anonymous No.12001149]

>>12001138
>So then what's all the fuss about?
idk what do you mean? value is very real in capitalism.

[Anonymous No.12001155]

>>12001138
>I thought the problem was that the surplus value was being stolen.
See >>12000353

[Anonymous No.12001160]

A commodity is worth the price people are willing to pay for it, the market price. It is not the value of the amount of labor put into the product.

[Anonymous No.12001162]

>>12001149
But isn't the point that it's exploitative because of surplus value?
You contradict yourself.
If you don't care about value and labour and all that then you can't use it to say capitalism is bad.

[Anonymous No.12001170]

>>12001155
see
>>12001162

[Anonymous No.12001173]

>>12000196
god doesn't look kindly on threads like this

[Anonymous No.12001184]

>>12001162
>If you don't care about value and labour and all
I don't know where you got that impression. These categories are important for analyzing and criticizing capitalism. and see >>12001155

[Anonymous No.12001189]

>>12001145
Yeah but it wouldn't be. Socialism eradicates unemployment.

[Anonymous No.12001201]

>>12001162
"Exploitation" is the techinal term Marx uses to describe how the capitalist makes profit, yeah, but he's not saying it's "exploitative" in the colloquial sense. This is discussed earlier in the thread.

And it's not about "not caring about value and labour"; that other person was saying that the concept of value, as Marx uses it, wouldn't exist in a communist society.

[Anonymous No.12001209]

I'm stealing a block quote from Wikipedia because I'm too lazy to go back through Capital and Interest to find the section where Böhm-Bawerk says something similar, but this criticism is still just about as good as any:
>[...] any input could be chosen as a creator of value [...] Thus a 'paper theory of value' would hold that prices were ultimately determined by values, defined as quantities of 'socially necessary paper' (measured in pounds weight). The organic composition of capital would be the ratio of non-paper means of production to paper, and it would be asserted that only paper created new value, and therefore surplus-value. The whole of Capital could be rewritten, substituting 'paper' for 'labor'. Exploitation of paper-owners would occur because they do not really sell their paper, but rather their 'paper-power'. Goods requiring no paper inputs would be regarded as having 'imaginary prices', just as Marx regarded salable goods which require no labor inputs. The same thing, of course, could be done with 'electricity', 'liquid', 'metal', or 'machines', or it could be done with 'capital' (constant capital, which would then have to be renamed variable capital), thus showing that the capitalist class produces all wealth and is exploited by other classes, especially the wholly unproductive working class, which contributes no capital and therefore no value. To provide support for Marx's theory, it is necessary to show both that prices can be mathematically derived from labor-values (the transformation problem) and to present a good argument why we would wish to do this - why the class of inputs known as 'labor' should be given this privileged position in the determination of prices.