/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14611619]

How can Marxists still believe in the alienation of labour if the labour theory of value is completely outdated?

[Anonymous No.14611628]

>>14611619
1) The LTV is still correct
2) Alienation is independent of LTV

[Anonymous No.14611637]

They are brainwashed into financial cuckoldry. Ignore Marx and his ideals of a classless society which bore no fruit.

[Anonymous No.14611658]

>>14611628
No. It is not correct. This drawing was made by Picasso in a few minutes in a single line draw and it worths millions.

[Anonymous No.14611675]

>>14611658
>it worths millions
No, it's priced in the millions.

[Anonymous No.14611695]

>>14611658
He owns his own means of production

[Anonymous No.14611700]

>>14611675
There is no difference. The money that went to Picasso's bank account wasn't correlative to the amount of time spent on drawing the pigeon. Things are valued on what people are ready to pay.

[Anonymous No.14611726]

>>14611695
So are you telling me that if he had a bourgeois patron suddenly the picture wouldn't worth millions and he had been paid according to the time spent on it?

[Anonymous No.14611748]

[Anonymous No.14611759]

>>14611700
>There is no difference.
Imagine being this ignorant.

[Anonymous No.14611775]

>>14611726
No I'm saying it is irrelevant to the LTV because he was directly compensated for his labor

[Anonymous No.14611780]

>>14611759
What matters is the money that you get at the end, retard. No "what my outdated XIXth century theory says it worths"

[Anonymous No.14611782]

>>14611658
>>14611695
>>14611700
>>14611726
Picasso had a monopoly on making "original Picassos".

[Anonymous No.14611785]

>>14611619
It's like asking a Lutheran why they believe in Sola Scriptura. It's simply doctrine.

[Anonymous No.14611791]

>>14611782
And a company brand has the Monopoly on making their own unique product.

[Anonymous No.14611795]

>>14611780
Do you not grasp that we are currently working under a capitalist mode of production?

[Anonymous No.14611803]

LABOR THEORY OF VALUE IS RIGHT
https://youtu.be/emnYMfjYh1Q

[Anonymous No.14611805]

>>14611775
Please elaborate

[Anonymous No.14611806]

>>14611658
How many artists does society need to produce until one with Picasso´s talent appears?

[Anonymous No.14611817]

>>14611780
>What matters is the money that you get at the end, retard.
No, it doesn't. Many things have a nonzero price but zero value. For example, uncultivated land. Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.14611825]

>>14611795
And?

[Anonymous No.14611829]

>>14611619
Base-superstructure is even more retarded. It isn't at all corroborated by anthropological evidence.

[Anonymous No.14611835]

>>14611806
Quality is universal. The same thing can be said about a shoe factory that makes high quality shoes like never before.

[Anonymous No.14611861]

>>14611619
Bit of brainlet question, but is the entire dillema about theories of value the following?
>Value of object can be judged by it's material properties. E.g. scarcity of resources, difficulty of production
>Values of objects are phenomena depending on unpredictable circumstances and can't be deduced from material quality of the good

[Anonymous No.14611866]

>>14611817
That's almost metaphysics. Who is putting the "value"? Do things have an inherent value? The uncultivated land could have resources on it and suddenly would have a value. The definition that your theory sets to the word "value" is not universal.

[Anonymous No.14611871]

>>14611619
The LTV was literally just Marx saying people should be paid fairly for their time

[Anonymous No.14611884]

>>14611835
>The same thing can be said about a shoe factory that makes high quality shoes like never before.
Well that depends on whatever the shoe factory is run by some talented personel or if it's done by excellent machines and patterns. First case is the same as with Picasso, the latter is entirely question of copyrights and industrial intel.

[Anonymous No.14611905]

>>14611795
And that is a good thing. But why reduce the complexity of our system of produbtive enterprise to just one component, money? Obviously in order to oversimplify it so as to make Marx' specious arguments more convincing.

[Anonymous No.14611909]

>>14611884
Artists are crafters, just like companies. The artist like some kind of divine entity is romantic bullshit. No matter how many machines and patterns the company has there is always an intellectual product behind.

[Anonymous No.14611910]

>>14611866
Have you ever even read Marx? Clearly not, since all these questions are answered exhaustively in Capital vol.1.

[Anonymous No.14611941]

>>14611658
The LTV is meant to explain the value of reproducible mass commodities, not individual pieces of art.

[Anonymous No.14611943]

>>14611910
Then refute them, clever boy who has read the capital. Or find the quotations.

[Anonymous No.14611950]

>>14611941
What's the difference? They all are products in a market.

[Anonymous No.14611954]

>>14611637
The USSR and China improved the lives of billions. Marxism-Leninism ended fascism and colonial regimes all around the world.

[Anonymous No.14611963]

>>14611866
>>14611943
>The uncultivated land could have resources on it and suddenly would have a value.
No, it wouldn't.

>The definition that your theory sets to the word "value" is not universal.
What is that supposed to mean? The LTV is not a theory of prices.

[Anonymous No.14611970]

>>14611909
Companies produce large amount of same products. Artists produce individual pieces. Shoe costs the same as it's copy, but copy of artist's piece will be disproportionately cheaper than the original purely because of that romantic bullshit.

[Anonymous No.14611976]

>>14611954
t.moron

[Anonymous No.14611981]

>>14611805
hypothetically, picasso could have been hired by somebody to produce artwork. the contract states the employer retains intellectual rights over the images produced and owns the physical artwork produced, in exchange for paying picasso a set hourly rate.

i'm not sure the theory is disproved by an exception of 1 being self-employed and 2. having a monopoly over works produced

[Anonymous No.14611988]

>>14611976
t.booj

[Anonymous No.14612004]

>>14611658
picasso's labor is worth much more than the average social labor

[Anonymous No.14612025]

>>14611970
The painter could make more than one painting, and what it sets the value is the authorship. It is just like if Lamborghini makes three cars of one model. The seal of the brand and the artist's authorship is the same.

[Anonymous No.14612026]

>>14611943
Magnitude of value expresses a relation of social production, it expresses the connexion that necessarily exists between a certain article and the portion of the total labour-time of society required to produce it. As soon as magnitude of value is converted into price, the above necessary relation takes the shape of a more or less accidental exchange-ratio between a single commodity and another, the money-commodity. But this exchange-ratio may express either the real magnitude of that commodity’s value, or the quantity of gold deviating from that value, for which, according to circumstances, it may be parted with. The possibility, therefore, of quantitative incongruity between price and magnitude of value, or the deviation of the former from the latter, is inherent in the price-form itself. This is no defect, but, on the contrary, admirably adapts the price-form to a mode of production whose inherent laws impose themselves only as the mean of apparently lawless irregularities that compensate one another.

The price-form, however, is not only compatible with the possibility of a quantitative incongruity between magnitude of value and price, i.e., between the former and its expression in money, but it may also conceal a qualitative inconsistency, so much so, that, although money is nothing but the value-form of commodities, price ceases altogether to express value. Objects that in themselves are no commodities, such as conscience, honour, &c., are capable of being offered for sale by their holders, and of thus acquiring, through their price, the form of commodities. Hence an object may have a price without having value. The price in that case is imaginary, like certain quantities in mathematics. On the other hand, the imaginary price-form may sometimes conceal either a direct or indirect real value-relation; for instance, the price of uncultivated land, which is without value, because no human labour has been incorporated in it.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch03.htm

[Anonymous No.14612035]

>>14612004
And how is that related to the LTV?

[Anonymous No.14612059]

>>14611981
That doesn't make the picture's value related to the hours spent on it anyways.

[Anonymous No.14612066]

>>14612026
Thanks for this. Though, it doesnt exactly explain how "Objects that in themselves are no commodities, such as conscience, honour, &c" can be accurately quantified in value. and that is the crux of most of this. how to quantify potential.

[Anonymous No.14612111]

>>14612025
>The painter could make more than one painting
Three different ones with three different values or three same that will again have different value depending on which one was first or had some unexpected feature.

>It is just like if Lamborghini makes three cars of one model.
Those three cars will be equivalent in value.

[Anonymous No.14612159]

>>14611658
>conflating worth and price

[Anonymous No.14612161]

>>14612111
what if the paintings are indistinguishable one from the another?

[Anonymous No.14612166]

>>14612159
Ok what is the prize if not the measurement of the worth?

[Anonymous No.14612243]

>>14612166
a Coconut is worth more on a desert island than the Mona Lisa not because of its price, but its use value.

[Anonymous No.14612254]

>>14612026
this is a fucking dogma. It literally assumes that value is made by labour-time without question. holy fuck, and these people are the ones who mock on religious stuff.

[Anonymous No.14612263]

>>14612243
A Coconut worths more in that situation because people are ready to pay whatever in order to satisfy their hunger.

[Anonymous No.14612268]

>>14612254
In your dreams, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.14612275]

>>14612263
In other words, they are willing to expend more labour-time.

[Anonymous No.14612290]

>>14612161
Impossible. If the author is worth talking about, the differences between pictures will be analyzed and value will differ accordingly.

[Anonymous No.14612292]

>>14612268
ok, then what is the part where Marx argues that value is ONLY and ONLY the amount of time/labour spent?

[Anonymous No.14612295]

[Anonymous No.14612306]

>>14612275
what labour and what time? money doesn't need labour to be created.

[Anonymous No.14612408]

>>14612292
Start with the simplest case: Robinson Crusoe. Clearly the value of a given object -- a coconut, a fish, etc -- is determined by the amount of time and effort it is worth expending in order to retrieve it. Now add another person to the island. This second castaway may have slightly different needs. So, when Robinson is out gathering resources, he needs to take into account not only his own needs but also the needs of his companion, with whom he can trade for what he needs. So that rate of exchange is ultimately determined by the collective labour value of the items being traded. Adding more people does not change this fundamental picture.

>>14612306
Money is worthless in a castaway scenario. The value of the given resource is determined by the amount of time and effort worth expending to get it or make it.

[Anonymous No.14613928]

>>14612408
But adding more people makes a barter economy unfeasible to maintain, and thus currency needs to be established. This becomes true for any human gathering of over, say, 150 individuals. Coincidentally this is also Dunbarr's number, which is fitting because money is an impersonal way to deal with a scale of human interaction which is, necessarily in biological terms, beyond the scope of our capacity for intimate understanding.
Once capital is established, practical value begins to drift in various ways away from synergising with LTV.
Communism/Marxism is only capable in tiny tribes.

[Anonymous No.14613953]

>>14613928
Currency changes nothing.

[Anonymous No.14614007]

>>14611950
Yeah and people and products are the same since its all atoms anyway
Deconstruction can hurt more than help

[Anonymous No.14614081]

>>14611619
How can anybody unironically be a Marxist after Popper?

[Anonymous No.14614502]

>>14614081
Cringe.

[Anonymous No.14614507]

>>14611871
he's saying that a cabal of Jews should be empowered to decide what value everything has and everyone else has to abide by their decision. rather like today's art world, ironically

[Anonymous No.14614509]

>>14614507
Source?

[Anonymous No.14614526]

>>14614509
the labor value is presented as objective, even though it only exists in Marx's mind and has never been seen in the wild. as a result it has no predictive power for real world systems. this means it has no utility whatsoever, unless you specifically re-order the world to make everything a function of the value. since the value doesn't exist, it must be explicitly defined for each and every good. this can only be done by force, ie a central cabal with total power

[Anonymous No.14614544]

>>14614526
You've never read Marx.

[Anonymous No.14614580]

OP just read Marx instead of brainlet posting something you saw on youtube

[Anonymous No.14614603]

>>14614544
seething midwit. imagine reading marx and being anything but disgusted by the personality cult which has formed around his incoherent nonsense. CP Snow was right about "intellectuals" and their collective inability to comprehend anything involving numbers or logic

[Anonymous No.14614629]

>>14611658
>it worths millions.
stop well your behind

[Anonymous No.14615523]

>>14612408
No, the value depend on wether or not Robinson deems it worthy of its effort. Easily gatherable coconuts are still more valuable than that pretty shell stuck in a reef of poisonous jellyfish.

[Anonymous No.14615528]

>>14614580
>get btfo
>answer with a wall of nonsense
Lel good meme OP.

[Anonymous No.14615533]

>itt op's impotent arguments are blown the fuck out immediately and repeatedly but op pretends she (male) hasn't been refuted and a pointless thread lingers on, refusing to die

[Anonymous No.14615536]

>>14614603
Why waste time on numbers when there is WARFARE TO EFFECT THROUGHOUT HUMANITY.

Can I just say how harmful the philosophies of Marxism and Social Darwinism have been to humanity? We have made no progress because of these deleterious notions.

It is time to progress into something better: something that removes disutility from our lives and collectively improves our utility, something not based on class conflict, but on coming together. :3

[Anonymous No.14615685]

>>14611619
look ist and isms are just way for idiots to hitch strawmen to their opinions. I'll make it easy for you, no need to look beyond your current world. Imagine last week happened the way it did, but no currency changed hands. Someone who didn't work enough got evicted. A multinational mining conglomerate approved an invoice from an equipment supplier. Most people did some kind of work and got groceries. Imagine it keeps happening. All of last year occurred without the exchange of currency, but everything else was the same. Eventually, you might find people being provided goods and services disproportionate to what they provide themselves.

Imagine the opposite. All of last weeks transactions, bills, taxes, invoices went through but no work or exchange of goods and services was done.

The people who traded goods and services in the case of no money changing hands ARE society. Look at the opposite, no society.

The stock market has a use in providing a structure for recognizing future profit (loans) and decreasing market friction by allowing unrelated industries to trade.

Once you can see the gap between currency and value you can start to understand the critics.

Or more simply, if you aren't the sam walton family, but are in the top %5 of earners, (about 100k a year in america), could you assemble a more productive team for 39 billion? That would be 39,000 people as smart and capable as you being as productive as a family of 5.

You can easily tear my ideas down citing the current rules and regulations, but that would mean you missed the point.

[Anonymous No.14616865]

>>14611803
>Cockshott
Heh.

[The Man !QkRJTXcpFI No.14616963]

>>14611619
Marxism has always, and will always, be a pathetic fantasy of the weak. It does not and did not reflect reality at all. The retard Marxists believe that the "true" "value" of an "object" is it's "use value". Oh, really? But why isn't the appearance of the object to others not correlative of it's value? But why isn't the value of a thing increased if I want to waste it instead of "use" it? Answer: because Marx is a resentful retard.
>Magnitude of value expresses a relation of social production, it expresses the connexion that necessarily exists between a certain article and the portion of the total labour-time of society required to produce it.
But what if you produced it yourself, for yourself? Where is the "labour-time" of "society" in that? Why is Marx trying to tell me what I value? Answer: because he is a retard ventriloquist. Marxists are pretty much saying everything they make themselves has no value. And they aren't wrong, at least in their case!
>As soon as magnitude of value is converted into price, the above necessary relation takes the shape of a more or less accidental exchange-ratio between a single commodity and another, the money-commodity. But this exchange-ratio may express either the real magnitude of that commodity’s value, or the quantity of gold deviating from that value, for which, according to circumstances, it may be parted with.
Oh, yes, the "real" magnitude of value, lol. Hint to retard: the individual interprets the thing and gives it it's value.
>The price-form, however, is not only compatible with the possibility of a quantitative incongruity between magnitude of value and price, i.e., between the former and its expression in money, but it may also conceal a qualitative inconsistency, so much so, that, although money is nothing but the value-form of commodities, price ceases altogether to express value.
The second you take the valuation of value away from the individual the price ceases altoghether to express "value". Money doesn't express "value", and neither does your stupid theory.
>Objects that in themselves are no commodities, such as conscience, honour, &c., are capable of being offered for sale by their holders, and of thus acquiring, through their price, the form of commodities. Hence an object may have a price without having value.
Which assumes that conscience and honor are valueless, lol. Marxists... hallucinating in their little pathetic world of economics.
>The price in that case is imaginary, like certain quantities in mathematics.
I think your stupid theory is imaginary, straight out of the delusions of the resentful.

Marxism is religious nihilism. Since the individual is suffering so bad in capitalism, since they are declining and decaying, they need some sort of an idea of one day escaping into a fantasy beyond world, like the slave fantasized about a heaven fantasy beyond world, just to make their lives bearable. It is actually quite saddening.

[Anonymous No.14616971]

>>14616963
>The retard Marxists believe that the "true" "value" of an "object" is it's "use value".
Nope. Stopped reading right there.

[Anonymous No.14616980]

In general I have an understanding of the LTV and I'm fond of it but a few situations make me question it.

1. Intellectual 'property'. If a musician puts x labor time in a song and sells y digital copies, what is the true determinate of the musician's value production, especially given that the time to produce it is finite but the material is infinite.

2. What about the case for LTV in capitalism whereby an 'entrepreneur' has an exponential effect on bringing about a product? So she puts in x hours, the same as a laborer, but claims y^2 value compared to the laborer's of y, making the total value y+y^2. That seems right to me. But how could we calculate the exponential difference when we can recognize a qualitative difference in labor despite the quantitative equality? Don't we in real life recognize a difference in quality of labor time despite equality in labor hours?

[Anonymous No.14617068]

>>14611658
exchange-value (price) =/= value (socially necessary labor)
If you want a better argument against LTV read Baudrillard, yours is laughably bad and has "I haven't read Marx" written all over it

[Anonymous No.14617099]

>>14615523
Did you even read the post you responded to?

[Anonymous No.14617109]

>>14614603
Marx contributed more to science and mathematics than you ever will, pseud.

>>14615685
Take your meds.

>>14615536
Take your hormones.

[Anonymous No.14617216]

>>14611658
I’m not a Marxist but I could see that they would argue that the real ‘work’ that went into that value was all the time it took for Picasso to become celebrated. Of course that still doesn’t equate properly to that level of value anyway

[Anonymous No.14617293]

>>14611817
uncultivated land has value retard, why would someone buy something that has no value?

[Anonymous No.14617300]

>>14614007
how is it a false deconstruction?

[Anonymous No.14617304]

>>14617068
Explain to me how value is socially necessary labor
Does one not find value in the sun, yet producing a sun would be impossible?

[Anonymous No.14617308]

>>14617293
Brainlet detected.

[Anonymous No.14617317]

>>14617308
>no you didn't accept my question begging
explain how something could have worth without value

[Anonymous No.14617609]

price doesn't equal value

[Anonymous No.14617670]

>>14617609
There must be value to have price

[Anonymous No.14617703]

>>14617670
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.14617725]

>>14617703
Name something that has price that has no value without resorting to question begging

[Anonymous No.14617784]

>>14617725
A night with your mom.

[Anonymous No.14617826]

>>14617784
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO
NOT THE MOM JOKES

[Anonymous No.14617832]

>>14617109
my poor son. I'd let you try and make money with your ideas, but not in a branch that was make or break.

[Anonymous No.14618788]

>>14612408
these assume value is scale invariant; I would argue there's emergent value in the inherent complexity of modern systems. The idea of capital having a mind of its own isn't too far-fetched in this regard.

[Anonymous No.14618799]

>>14612408
>Money is worthless in a castaway scenario
reminder that Crusoe hangs on to his gold coins, although he's not entirely sure why

[Anonymous No.14618985]

>>14616980
to address your second point, the laborer gets paid regardless of the venture performance (ideally) at the expense of the entrepreneur. In this regard, it might be best to consider a fixed return per unit time from the laborer's input.

The entrepreneur's increased risk samples from a distribution of potential returns, which in cases of ruin will underperform the prudent labourer.

In my mind this is part of where Henry George had a better perspective than Marx: punish rent seeking, and the rest will sort itself out.

[Anonymous No.14619143]

>>14614526
this and only this. A fucking thread discussing something that doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.14620652]

>>14619143
LTV certainly has more predictive power than marginalism, which is just empty circular reasoning.

[Anonymous No.14620948]

>>14618985
But then if what you're saying is the correct solution to my problem then a capitalist can just say that there is no theft occuring and that their returns are justified. The whole critique of surplus value is that the capitalist skims the top off the value created. My point is that some claim of something like exponential would undermine the notion of surplus because we can argue that surplus does not exist. Rather, after the laborer is paid, all value belongs to the entrepreneur's exponential effect in terms of a product.

[Anonymous No.14620957]

>>14611658
to be fair that's a nice drawing

[Anonymous No.14620979]

>>14616980
>>14616980
>>14616980
>>14616980
Still waiting on answers from LTV people.

[Anonymous No.14621487]

>>14617099
Did you?

[Anonymous No.14621715]

>>14611658
Monopoly.

[Anonymous No.14621734]

>>14617304
According to Marx (Critique of the Gotha program) nature also has value. Although you can extract value from nature, but not from the sun.

[Anonymous No.14621755]

>>14618985
>>14620948
If you have private property of the means of production, you will have surplus value.
Surplus value is (falsely) justified by the fact the entrepreneur "owns" the means of production. The more the worker works and create wealth, the bigger the company he owns, the wealthier he is. However, the wage of the wage workers stay the same.
Capitalism is completely a scam. About his initial investment, once the entrepreneur get it back, he doesn't take risks anymore. He only take risks with his first initial investment. Once he got it back, it's all profit for him. He will get back 10 times, 100 times, 1000 times what he invested in the first place. How many times Jeff Bezos got back his initial investment? We never talk about those things, do we?
My point of view: Capitalism works because most people just don't understand those mecanisms. Or if they somehow understand it, they just don't get angry about it, because iphones, Netflix, vidya, VR, etc...

[Anonymous No.14622526]

>>14621755
This is some fucking brainlet take.
Do you think the people who invest into a buisness will then just stay home and jackoff all day? A buisness is a constant investement, even if it's sucesful since the owner have to know how much benefits to keep to himself and how much to put back in his buisness. And if it fails he might attempt to save it by investing more. What magical land do you come from that you believe such a naive thing?

>getting back your initial investement several time is bad
Only in the mind of jealous losers.

>capitalism is a scam
Nothing is stopping you from stzrting your own buisness, pal.

[Anonymous No.14623608]

>>14622526
what is stopping you ?

[Anonymous No.14623661]

>>14611658
It's clearly not a single line.

[Anonymous No.14623675]

>>14620979
you ask for value or for cost?. (value in use, vs value in exchange).


If is the first one. I don't think there is a way to really know the value of something, if you are dying in the desert a glass of water has more use value than 10kg of gold.

Marx theory IMO is not for "predicting prices", is to describe how capitalism works.

[Anonymous No.14623711]

>>14612059
right. there's a difference between the actual value of the work done and the amount paid to the worker.

that's the whole point.

[Anonymous No.14623759]

>>14611658
> This drawing was made by Picasso in a few minutes

Not related to LTV but Picasso built his fame over decades, he spent decades getting gud at arts and so on. Maybe he was born with a gift for drawing, So is not the result of few minutes.

[Anonymous No.14624255]

>>14611658
the LTV only applies to freely reproducible goods. works of art aren't freely reproducible goods.
>>14611871
no, it's not a prescriptive theory.
>>14614081
the LTV is falsifiable.

[Anonymous No.14624817]

>>14623675
>If is the first one. I don't think there is a way to really know the value of something, if you are dying in the desert a glass of water has more use value than 10kg of gold.
Like this happen every day everywhere. I'm sure you were once in this situation right anon? :s By the way, there are even laws that prohibits to sell products or services to a person in immediate danger. E.G, you cannot sell naval ships in distress your help in exchange of an unfair price, because it would be taking advantage of their life threatening situation. Now I'm anti-Statist, but even the State thinks those situation shouldn't obey the law of the market.
On the other hand, wage workers creating value with their work, you find this literally everywhere.
You cannot demonstrate the truth of the origin of value with those examples which happen almost never. Same for the example of the guy digging in the ground. He doesn't create value right. But do you know many people who do this?
However, a wage worker working in a factory, most of the time his labor is socially necessary labor.

[Anonymous No.14624846]

>>14611759
I'm a licensed appraiser. Anon is technically correct. Value is necessarily defined by what a market is willing to pay for it. Are markets perfectly optimized so that every option that would sell reaches its final buyer? No (and thank god it isn't honestly), but we still have nothing else to go on. I recently saw a house that had all marble floors, 6 fireplaces, walls were super thick, and there was even gilded molding throughout. The only problem was it's in the middle of rural Kentucky. No one who lives in that area could afford its "actual worth". It went for a very modest $840,000. Yes. You are right in some transcendent sense. Things do have value, but lets also be real. That value is subjective. Every bit of it. The idea of utility itself is nested within that same subjectivity. A things value is definitely informed by what it can be sold for.

[Anonymous No.14624909]

>>14624846
This is related to the housing question discussed by Friedrich Engels.

[Anonymous No.14624996]

>>14621755
Surplus value is not a guarantee; Speculating on farmland is affordable for the average American and nets you the "means of production", but is the fastest way I can think of to go bankrupt in Midwestern bumpkinville (out of scope of this shitpost).

Surplus value in the case of enterprises like Amazon in your example is entirely driven by the fact that people are willing to trade outsized resources for a share of that Bezosian enterprise; Sure Bezos gets rich, but from my POV that's just a side effect: I get to own a piece of Amazon, and Bezos happens to be the mook who has an imperial shit-ton of shares. And I think this an important distinction: he didn't get rich because the profits from Amazon flowed into his Credit Union account; Amazon famously invested every ounce of cash into further growth, and people who wanted a turnkey piece of the "means production" traded him stacks of cash for said means. Buffett did the same thing for Boomers back in the day.

In the grand scheme of the system, Bezos doesn't really matter - although better he at the helm of Amazon than some of the other grifter shits occupying space in c-suites across America

[Anonymous No.14625014]

>>14611817
The land does have value. Otherwise there would be no reason to exchange something of value for it. Marxists are literally incapable of understanding how capital structures time-preference.

[Anonymous No.14625036]

>>14614580
Lmao
> Individual transactions are subjective
> the sum of those transactions is objective
How do people take this shit seriously?

[Anonymous No.14625063]

I've never seen a marxist respond to the Austrian critique of ltv. Whenever someone brings it up they just start reciting capital again like fucking retards.
Just admit you've never read >pic related
You were btfo a century ago but you ignore it because you want to hold on to your power fantasy about how your shitty life is "capitalisms fault"

[Anonymous No.14625068]

>>14614580
> equilibrium prices
> I know what I got
Marx was literally the first boomer

[Anonymous No.14625073]

>>14624846
You don't have the mind for intellectual pursuits.

[Anonymous No.14625081]

>>14625014
You are clinically retarded.

[Anonymous No.14625122]

>>14625073
>>14625081
why can't marxists argue like regular people instead of insulting without arguments and repeating "read the Capital" like retards?

[Anonymous No.14625142]

>>14625081
Every prediction marx made was wrong. Your system is obviously wrong. You bugmen have been saying it's "late capitalism" since 1850 ffs.

[Anonymous No.14625154]

>>14625122
>like retards
>>14625142
>You bugmen
You're not helping your cause by leaping to ad hominems.

[Anonymous No.14625160]

>>14625122
They never argue to begin with. They just state Marx's position as undeniable truth and if you criticize them they just repeat their conclusions again like trained dogs because they're usually midwit college undergrads.

[Anonymous No.14625168]

>>14625154
>>14625081

>you are clinically retarded
>don't use insults
Incredible.

[Anonymous No.14625175]

>>14625168
Do you deny being clinically retarded? Come on anon, dialogue is impossible if we're not going to be honest with each other.

[Anonymous No.14625485]

>>14625073
I do, I'm just being pragmatic. There is no way to define value in an objective way. Absolutely none. That doesn't mean that I personally believe that. It simply means that any account of value you could present would be arbitrary. But none of this matters. It's a stupid outlook and materialism is for savages.

[Anonymous No.14625521]

>>14625485
Labour time is the ultimate source of all economic value. This shouldn't be controversial.

[Anonymous No.14625543]

>>14611780
What value does writing the century in Roman numerals have other than being a pseud

[Anonymous No.14625598]

>>14625521
Lol

[Anonymous No.14625606]

>>14625521
resources

[Anonymous No.14625615]

>>14625543
Not being a retarded amerimutt for example?

[Anonymous No.14625652]

>>14625521

> time is the source of all value

Doing the technical legwork to add "Labour" & "Economic" to the above assertion is infeasible afik. For one, the terms are far too imprecise as used.

[Anonymous No.14625655]

>>14625606
The exchange value of a natural resource is a function of the time/effort needed to obtain it. Saying prices are determined by "supply and demand" is just a circular platitude. It doesn't explain the underlying factors that drive economic value.

[Anonymous No.14626593]

>>14623608
I don't want to.

[Anonymous No.14626663]

>>14625063
who is he? what did he say? your post said nothing of value.

[Anonymous No.14626675]

>>14625142
>1450-1650 early capitalism
>1650-1850 mid capitalism
>1850-2050 late capitalism
checks out, doesn't it?

[Anonymous No.14626763]

>>14626663
yes but it took time to write thus it has value :DDDD

[Anonymous No.14627472]

>>14625485
>Still doesn't understand the concept of averages.

[Anonymous No.14627482]

>>14625655
True. supply and demand is even more mystic than LTV. Supply and demand suppose there is some mysterious and imperceptible phenomenon at work.

[Anonymous No.14627494]

>>14626763
Intellectual property doesn't have value. That's just a recent scam done by the Capital. Fortunately, intellectual property is going away naturally with the open source movement.

[Anonymous No.14627500]

>>14617293

Fidget spinners.

[Anonymous No.14627506]

The marxist's constant attempt to categorize "price" and "value" as different things is just a massive cope they use as an excuse to still keep believing in their stupid ideology. It's like commies still being commies because "real communism has never been implemented".

[Anonymous No.14627520]

>>14625036

My love for boypussy is subjective.
The amount of anuses I pounded is objective.

[Anonymous No.14627529]

>>14617109
>Marx contributed more to science and mathematics than you ever will, pseud.
He also contributed a lot to genocide, so theret's that.

[Anonymous No.14627567]

>>14611658
>price is value
>a singular piece of art is on the same level as production on a societal level
retard

[Anonymous No.14627585]

>>14627506
See the post directly above your own.

[Anonymous No.14627667]

>>14611954
good thing -> it must be socialism
bad thing -> it must be fascism

[Anonymous No.14627864]

>>14625063
Bawerk definitely probably got the most attention for obvious reasons, there's a ton of writing from that era and if you've never seen a response your extremely lazy, Bukharin probably had the most extensive response
https://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1927/leisure-economics/

Austrianism wasn't really relevant for most of the 20th century, things got more formal and mathematized so by mid-century the debates and issues were different.

[Anonymous No.14628357]

>>14627667
yes
finally starting to get it, huh