Value is objective

[Anonymous No.15477320]

>The LTV is wrong because value is subjective
Wrong. Value is both objective and subjective. The value of a commodity is first and foremost objective, and any extra value added onto it by human opinion is THEN subjective. Every commodity has a “base” value which is objective. This “base” value is determined by both exchange value and use value. Then, the subjectivity of a persons opinion can only add value afterwards, equaling up to a commodities “total” value. Of course, the opinion is ultimately worthless, and it’s only the objective value that actually matters. Therefore, the value of a commodity is objective. It’s only after we’ve established that fact can you even begin to comprehend that the socially necessary labor time for production adds objective value also (it does).

Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.15477333]

>>15477320
How objective is the value of commodity? What makes it objective?

[Anonymous No.15477346]

>>15477320
>Define use value
Basically, use value is determined by how useful an object is. We know for a fact that a chainsaw would be more useful than an axe as it shortens the amount of time it takes to cut down a tree.

>Define exchange value
In what proportion can this commodity be traded for other commodities? That is the exchange value. Can be influenced by both scarcity and the necessary labor time for the creation of the commodity in question.

[Anonymous No.15477361]

>>15477320
>Define use value
Basically, use value is determined by how useful an object is. We know for a fact that a chainsaw would be more useful than an axe as it shortens the amount of time it takes to cut down a tree. Therefore, a chainsaw would have more objective value than an axe.

>Define exchange value
In what proportion can this commodity be traded for other commodities? That is the exchange value. Can be influenced by both scarcity and the necessary labor time for the creation of the commodity in question.

[Anonymous No.15477399]

>>15477333
>How objective is the value of a commodity?
I would say at least 80%. The objective value is the base value. It cannot go lower. However, there are certain commodities where value is entirely subjective, such as art. This is because art has no use value. Art can be worth millions, or it can be worth nothing.

However, for most commodities, value has an objective base.

[Anonymous No.15477415]

>>15477399
Exemple of a commodity and how this commodity has a objective value?

[Anonymous No.15477491]

>>15477415
Let’s take for example the relationship of an axe and a chainsaw. A chainsaw is more useful than an axe, because it cuts the necessary labor time in half when cutting down trees. That is use value, one of the bases for objective value.

Let us take a car and a horse. Traveling by horse takes much longer than traveling by car, therefore a car has more use value than a horse. That is objective value.

If you’re asking me to give you an exact number, I can’t. It’s just a rough estimate unless you go much deeper in the math, but you can see that the differences of base value between x and y is in fact there.

[Anonymous No.15477522]

>>15477399
>uses subjectivity to disprove subjectivity

[Anonymous No.15477542]

>>15477522
How?

[Anonymous No.15477655]

>>15477491
>a car has more use value than a horse
Bullshit

[Anonymous No.15477697]

>>15477320
What's wrong leftypol chapotranny? Did you get laughed out of /biz/ because you continue to believe in the labour theory of value which is regarded as absolute horseshit by virtually every modern economist, and is considered the flat-earth theory of economics?

[Anonymous No.15477739]

>>15477697
Shitpost that doesn't add to the discussion

[Anonymous No.15477750]

>>15477491
Well, I would agree with you if you said that getting you hands dirty in sewers of the city is objectively worse than staying all day long in a bureau

[Anonymous No.15477770]

>>15477697
Flat earth is true.

[Anonymous No.15477794]

>>15477491

In order for value to be objective it would have to remain the same throughout all time. Which is disproven by your very own examples. Imagine the value of a horse prior to the invention of the car as opposed to now.

The value of the horse was lowered by the invention of the car, and this is because people subjectively valued it less as a result of cars being more efficient.

I'm sure someone who would have never predicted the invention of the car would have said that horses have an objective base value, only to be proven wrong once a car was invented.

[Anonymous No.15477812]

>>15477794
Having this said. I don't see how the LTV is necessary to make the case that the bourgeoisie is exploitative. Or that they even don't extract value from your labour.

[Anonymous No.15477816]

>>15477491
>Buy a bottle of wine that has already been produced and all of the labor involved is reflected in its value
>throw said bottle of wine in a cellar cupboard and forget about it for ten years
>ten years later that wine has now aged and has risen in value greatly even though you expended nil labor in the process
this kills the marxist

[Anonymous No.15477826]

>>15477794
>In order for value to be objective it would have to remain the same throughout all time.
No it wouldn’t, what gives you this idea? Objective value will obviously go down if something with a greater use value is invented. Marx even acknowledges this in capital.

[Anonymous No.15477859]

>>15477826
Because what makes something's value fluctuate is consumers subjective value for it. That can't happen independently of market agents. As if it's just forces of nature that decide that suddenly a horse isn't worth as much as it used to be.

[Anonymous No.15477870]

>>15477816
Nooo that's only the subjective portion of the value changing.

[Anonymous No.15477910]

>15477816
So you think that aged wine OBJECTIVELY has more value than new wine?
>defeats objective value by applying objective value

In all seriousness, of course there are exceptions. I’m still right about 90% of commodities though.

>>15477870
This unironically. Not everybody wants to get piss drunk. Sometimes, people just want a little buzz.

>As if it's just forces of nature that decide that suddenly a horse isn't worth as much as it used to be.
No, it’s the fact that a commodity with a greater use value was invented. That’s objective, which further proofs this theory.

[Anonymous No.15477923]

>>15477816
So you think that aged wine OBJECTIVELY has more value than new wine?
>defeats objective value by applying objective value

In all seriousness, of course there are exceptions. I’m still right about 90% of commodities though.

>>15477870 #
This unironically. Not everybody wants to get piss drunk. Sometimes, people just want a little buzz.

>>15477859
>As if it's just forces of nature that decide that suddenly a horse isn't worth as much as it used to be.
No, it’s the fact that a commodity with a greater use value was invented. That’s objective, which further proofs this theory.

[Anonymous No.15477931]

>>15477816
So you think that aged wine OBJECTIVELY has more value than new wine?
>defeats objective value by applying objective value

In all seriousness, of course there are exceptions. I’m still right about 90% of commodities though. And wine is not an essential, so it doesn’t matter.

>>15477870
This unironically. Not everybody wants to get piss drunk. Sometimes, people just want a little buzz.

>>15477859
>As if it's just forces of nature that decide that suddenly a horse isn't worth as much as it used to be.
No, it’s the fact that a commodity with a greater use value was invented. That’s objective, which further proofs this theory.

[Anonymous No.15477940]

>>15477491
Between two tools, holding everything else equal, people will prefer the one that saves them time. That doesn't make the value objective.The value of time varies from person to person. Everyone faces a different trade-off in regard to what tool to buy because of their subjective value of time.

[Anonymous No.15477965]

>>15477923
"greater use value" is not an objective measure of anything. It is completely dependent on an observer having a subjective preference.

[Anonymous No.15478003]

>>15477320
Transformation problem

[Anonymous No.15478005]

>>15477931
The value of a commodity is completely subjective. It does not come from labour as Marx posits

[Anonymous No.15478007]

>>15477320
objective is a bourgeois word

[Anonymous No.15478023]

>>15477491
>value is objective
>uses opinions to talk about values

you fail like the leftists

[Anonymous No.15478041]

reactionaries
>FUCK liberals for undermining objective truth and morality!! not everything is subjective you evil postmodernist jews!!!
>the value of my work? w-well you see, thats entirely subjective and up to the boss what he sets as my wage. n-no i'm not being exploited, its not objective its subjective
lmao c-cks

[Anonymous No.15478049]

No one intrinsically owns what they produce lol capitalism and communism btfo

[Anonymous No.15478056]

>>15477491
>chainsaws don't require fuel

[Anonymous No.15478057]

>>15478005
>completely subjective
>in every way
>It does not come from labour
You’re missing the point of this thread. I’m not even really arguing for the labor theory of value, just for the factor that commodities do have objective value in general, at least to a certain degree. They also have subjective value, but only after the base value has been established (the base value is what is objective)

[Anonymous No.15478064]

>>15478041
Notice how there's nothing contradictory between those two statements at all? lmao

[Anonymous No.15478075]

>>15478041
Let's not forget people are KEKS when they trade halloween candy.
>b-b-b-but i like 2 chocolates more than i like 10 candy corn
KEK

[Anonymous No.15478102]

Value doesn't exist
Only price
LTV is circular and completely worthless

[Anonymous No.15478103]

>>15477320
>the subjectivity of a persons opinion can only add value afterwards, equaling up to a commodities “total” value.
Hell no, look at the price rise in GPUs after the crypto boom as an example of this. That's not an objective base use. The thing is that any object has untold possible teleologies, you can use a mug to hold water, coffee, or even paint or to catch the dripping water from your ceiling, or catch a bug. This simple principle of human ingenuity extends to all material (and sometimes intangible) objects.
The value is not only subjective but totally contextual.
What is the value of a bag of sand in the Sahara desert compared to in a verdant area where there is no sand but water filtration is needed?
>>15477794
>Imagine the value of a horse prior to the invention of the car as opposed to now.
This. Why are electric cars so loath to catch on? Couldn't be that the value and utility of the car is dependent on the power infrastructure to fuel it?
>>15477859
>fluctuate is consumers subjective value for it.
And not only that but remember Metcalfe's law (not the actual ratio, which is probably bullshit, but the tendency as it related to things like the 'Mathew Effect' for networks to gain more value the more users they have)

[Anonymous No.15478112]

I’ve noticed that we’ve been talking about use value the whole thread, but haven’t even touched exchange value. So what? Do you deny that scarcity effects a commodities value?

[Anonymous No.15478125]

>>15477361
you have not defined value.

[Anonymous No.15478139]

>>15477320
doesnt marx oppose the objective value which is exchange-value

[Anonymous No.15478149]

>>15477320
I don’t think you have read any serious critique of LTV if you argue like this.
The problem is not whether there is any objective value. The problem is that even if there were to exist some objective value, there is no way to derive it. Zero. Thus you have to settle on a market to attempt to assign a value to it. Of course, the process is immensely flawed. But claiming that there is a ‘base’ is stupid. Exchange value and use value even as they are defined are not ‘objective’ measures.
Basically, you claiming that there is an objective value to something, whether it is art, oil or labour is not enough because you have not demonstrated how we can grasp it. If you want to understand this argument, read early Austrian school

[Anonymous No.15478197]

>>15477320
There’s so many bad takes on LTV online.
>>15477859
Marx wouldn’t deny that market price is influenced by consumer demand. The question Marx is trying to answer is how is Capitalism possible? Basically what are the social relations which make allocation of socially useful labour to different branches of production through a market possible. In earlier volumes of capital “value” basically represents the average amount of social labour we have to allocate to a commodity. The trade of money and commodities is seen as a way of indirectly validating labour you’ve performed as socially useful giving you access to goods you need to satisfy your needs. In Volume three this is replaced by prices of production. Marx doesn’t deny that consumer demand has an influence on market prices but thinks long term trends in the prices of commodities is governed by changes in productivity. There are good reasons to criticize the LTV but a conceptual critique like this is off the mark

[Anonymous No.15478229]

>>15477361
That’s not what use value is at least in Marx? The way Marx defines use value is how its properties satisfy some sort of human need. This lies outside the scope of economics which is why Marx says the study of use values is the work of history.

[Anonymous No.15478264]

>>15477794
>In order for value to be objective it would have to remain the same throughout all time.
"In order for the temperature to be objective it would have to remain the same throughout all time"
Congratulations, this is the most retarded thing I'm going to read today.

>>15477816
>hasn't read vol. 3 of capital
good to know buddy, but next time just don't post anything

>>15477859
>As if it's just forces of nature that decide that suddenly a horse isn't worth as much as it used to be.
It was though, as far as productive powers of human society count as forces of nature.

>>15478003
Doesn't exist.

>>15478102
Value and price must be separate because the moment of production is separate from the moment of sale. If I have a commodity, then there undeniably are two separate facts about it: how much resources would it take to reproduce it and how much resources would it fetch on the market. The two correspond to value and price.

>>15478112
>Do you deny that scarcity effects a commodities value?
Its value determines its scarcity.

>>15478149
>The problem is not whether there is any objective value. The problem is that even if there were to exist some objective value, there is no way to derive it.
That's not a problem. Communists postulate the abolition of commodity-form, so not only there wouldn't be any need to "derive" value of a commodity but there wouldn't be value at all (since there wouldn't be a commodity).

>>15478229
It goes even further: use-value is simply the natural body of the commodity. The fact that it's socially useful is already assumed beforehand, because if it weren't useful, then it wouldn't have been reproduced a commodity.

[Anonymous No.15478293]

>>15478264
Yh well you do realize this is crazy right? The only way to remove value and price is to remove scarcity, and i don’t mean reduce it. Like actually remove it, not simply reduce it.

[Anonymous No.15478310]

>>15478293
I don’t know why he made that comment about scarcity but it doesn’t have support in Marx imo.

[Anonymous No.15478326]

>>15478310
Oh he meant removing value and price.
Okay so in Marx value and price are categories distinct to capitalism. They are a mystified way of understanding and talking about social relations of production. In communism there would be new relations of production due to the lack of a market or Capital, so categories like “value” or “price” are no longer accurate ways of talking about how we produce our goods. It doesn’t mean we wouldn’t have any sort of accounting (Marx proposed a form of time accounting in Critique of the Gotha Program)

[Anonymous No.15478337]

>>15478293
>The only way to remove value and price is to remove scarcity, and i don’t mean reduce it. Like actually remove it, not simply reduce it.
No, you only need to remove the commodity form of the product of labour.

[Anonymous No.15478343]

>>15478337
You realize if you use Marx jargon when talking to people it‘s no different from using Hegelnese. You should explain what the terms you’re using mean lol

[Anonymous No.15478344]

>>15478264
>In order for value to be objective it would have to remain the same throughout all time.
>Congratulations, this is the most retarded thing I'm going to read today.
Not that anon. Please tell me where 'value' exists in the universe without humans? It's not like heat or entropy. Value is not a natural phenomenon, it needs at least one human for it to exist and extract it.

[Anonymous No.15478346]

>>15478326
But here is the problem. How is a lack of market possible?

[Anonymous No.15478364]

>>15478343
lol read a book you faggot. I'm not your teacher

>>15478344
>Please tell me where 'value' exists in the universe without humans?
It doesn't.
If your post was meant as an objection to something I wrote then it failed miserably.

>>15478346
>How is a lack of market possible?
It's called a communist society.

[Anonymous No.15478368]

>>15478344
Marx doenst think that value exist without humans. Marx is working in Kant/Hegel tradition. The idea in Capital is you take all these economic categories like value, strip them of mystification and show how they are actually sets of social relations. So value per this definition doesn’t exist without humans at all, it doesn’t even exist outside of market society because these productive relations don’t.
>>15478346
Well pre-market societies which directly allocated labour they needed to different types of production existed for most of human history. The question of whether this is possible on a large and industrial scale is not something I’m equip to answer and one of the reasons I wouldn’t describe myself as a Marxist.

[Anonymous No.15478379]

>>15478364
I have read a book I’ve read most of Capital, Volume 1 twice. But go ahead come off obtuse by using Marxoid terminology without exposing what it means

[Anonymous No.15478389]

>>15478364

Communism makes sense when resources are limitless. This is not the case right now, and from a scientific point of view is not feasible for the next few centuries. With that, you need rationing, and then markets come into play.

[Anonymous No.15478402]

>>15478389
>not feasible for the next few centuries.
Of course. Socialism will come first before communism. And that stage of human society will last about as long as all the other stages lasted.

[Anonymous No.15478406]

>>15478379
The first chapter of the book is entirely dedicated to the commodity form. If you really read it and you still don't even know what its object was then you need to see a brain doctor or better yet just kill yourself on the spot.
And why would I care how I come off to a bunch of retards?

>>15478389
Thanks for your unsubstantiated garbage opinion.

[Anonymous No.15478413]

>>15478264
Well if you’ve read Volume 3 Capital surely you could tell us how Marx refutes the point?

[Anonymous No.15478425]

>>15478402
I don’t think you understand what I mean. Its not possible to have limitless resources technically, for an indefinite amount of time. We can functionally have a generation live on as much as they want, but its not something that can last forever.

[Anonymous No.15478431]

>>15478406
Nice argument. Last i check stuff like oil, gold, silver, platinum are not infinite. Unless you happen to have the philosopher’s stone

[Anonymous No.15478440]

>>15478413
No, read it yourself. Also, there's nothing to refute. There's just lack of understanding on the part of the author of that comment, but it's not my job to deal with that.

>>15478425
Limitless resources have nothing to do with communism. Your sci-fi thread is that way ->

>>15478431
>Last i check stuff like oil, gold, silver, platinum are not infinite
Great observation. You're right.
(If your post was meant as an objection to something I wrote then it failed miserably.)

[Anonymous No.15478444]

>>15478440
>No
Lol

[Anonymous No.15478453]

>>15478440
Claim: limitless resources have nothing to do with communism.
Counter-claim: The only way to avoid a relation where labour is traded equally and some labour is more useful than other is if everyone can get as much of anything as they want. That will never be the case, because nothing is infinite.

[Anonymous No.15478464]

>>15478453
Claim: The only way to avoid a relation where labour is traded equally and some labour is more useful than other is if everyone can get as much of anything as they want.
Counter-claim: The way to avoid a relation where labour is traded is communism.

[Anonymous No.15478470]

>>15478464
The gradual IQ deflation on this board has been sickening to watch

[Anonymous No.15478496]

>>15478470
It's not about IQ. There are 20 IPs in this thread and maybe 2 have read and understood a minimum amount of Marx. People don't even understand what the terms "value" or "communist society" mean, yet for some reason they feel the need to share their uninformed reddit opinions about what determines value or about when a communist society is possible or not. This is not a problem of lack of IQ, this is a problem of jerking off to anime and playing video games instead of reading a fucking book to understand what it is you're even talking about before you start talking about it.

[Anonymous No.15478509]

How is labour related to exchange or use value?

[Anonymous No.15478531]

>>15477491
A car has more [objective] value if the person in question decides to measure value in the time it takes to travel to a desired location. Unfortuntely for you, that is a subjective criteria that each person must make for his or herself. So it is not objective. A person may value what a horse offers that a car cannot. Certainly some horses cost more than some cars. The value of a horse is not usually derived from how quickly you can get from A to B as you would like to determine it to be. Although even in this practical sense, a horse can beat a car. In certain regions a horse may be able to get you to a location more efficiently given a lack of roads or paths. There are also plenty of cars that are more valuable than other cars, in terms of market price, which don’t get you to your destination any faster than a cheaper model.

[Anonymous No.15478539]

>>15478496
I’m sorry you wasted your time but is it really necessary to demand everyone else do the same?

[Anonymous No.15478557]

>>15478496
If you have something to say in favor of the LVT just say it.

[Anonymous No.15478608]

>>15478509
Exchange value and use value are forms of a commodity and the exchange of commodities is just a way of mediating the division of labour within a society.

>>15478539
The only time I wasted was time spent posting in /lit/ threads full of retards, and I don't need to demand the same of you because you're already doing it.

[Anonymous No.15478613]

>>15478364
>It doesn't.
It wasn't an objection, but to compare temperature (thermodynamic energy) with heat seems like a false equivalence and it seems like you were being unfair on that other anon. A dickless act which in fact which is not conducive to a constructive dialogue for anyone nor does it help you get your point across.
Lighten up.
>>15478368
Then the analogy between temperature and value was a false one.
That's all I wanted to know.

[Anonymous No.15478614]

>>15478264
>Doesn't exist.
Marx himself tried and failed to solve it in Capital Vol. 3. Read a book.

[Anonymous No.15478622]

>>15478613
with value not with heat.

[Anonymous No.15478657]

>>15478613
>>15478622
It was a valid analogy meant to illustrate that something quantifiable doesn't need to have its quantity immutable in time in order to be objective.

>>15478614
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.15478658]

>>15478608
Any thread you’re in will have at least one.

[Anonymous No.15478677]

>>15478658
That's right, as I only come here to pick on retards.

[Anonymous No.15478679]

>>15478496
IQ is a currency nimrod

[Anonymous No.15478690]

>>15478657
How do you figure?
Value is a human construct, the value of computer is precipitant on there being the electricity (of the right voltage and amps) to operate it and the operator with the knowledge and experience to program it and a opportunity to use it.
Even the raw materials which you could break that computer down into, the silicon, the copper etc. etc. have contextual values which have varied in their value throughout human history. Aluminum was once used to make French Royal cutlery but with the discovery of better refinement it is no longer a coveted material. Has the objective value remained the same?
Meanwhile since the beginning of time the nature and quantifiable nature of heat has remained the same. Even before mankind knew how to measure it.
Value however, is different.
I think it's a bad analogy.

[Anonymous No.15478696]

>>15478657
Value is still subjective.

[Anonymous No.15478748]

>>15478690
>Meanwhile since the beginning of time the nature and quantifiable nature of heat has remained the same.
The average temperature at the location of today's city of New York is an objective fact and it has changed throughout history.
>I think it's a bad analogy.
It's a perfectly valid analogy to dispel the idiotic notion that something objective can never change.

>>15478696
It's both objective and subjective. Refusing to think outside false alternatives of metaphysical categories is one of main causes of mental retardation.

[Anonymous No.15478778]

>>15478748
>It's both objective and subjective.
Great job. I believe LVT now.

[Anonymous No.15478781]

>>15477320
Lmao, nope. Sorry but you can't prove shit involving value objectively, you can just make cringe speculations to justify how being paid to do your job is actually theft.

Fortunately we humiliated and crushed your entire ideological position 30 years ago, and if you ever dare to steal so much as a stalk of grass from me, I am allowed to kill you, and then sue your mother for the cost of the lead before your body is even cold. Oh how I'd like to slap the whore in the mouth with the bill, to punish her for being a bad parent and raising a Leftist.

Keep your thief-apology nice and quiet, and get back to the assembly line where you belong, or you'll be out on the street where I'd prefer you in no time at all.

[Anonymous No.15478798]

>>15478748
>The average temperature at the location of today's city of New York is an objective fact and it has changed throughout history.
Yeah I see where you're going.
But how do you measure objective value of a thing?
Put it this way - what is the value of your posts? You're spending time, I think that like temperature we can agree time is a objective measure. You may choose to use time as a proxy for value - is this time, which has value (time = money) valuable spent in this thread right now?
Is that an objective measure of the value of your posts? And how do you value your posts? Not mine, not any other anons. Yours right now.

[Anonymous No.15478799]

>>15477320
LABOUR is subjective.
A
B
O
U
R

[Anonymous No.15478809]

>>15478799
this opinion has more value because more labour went into it. it also got dubs, a valuable exchange good

[Anonymous No.15478855]

>>15478778
You don't even understand what "LVT" is.

>>15478798
>But how do you measure objective value of a thing?
You can only measure it through price, and you do that by averaging the actual market prices.
>Put it this way - what is the value of your posts?
My posts are not a commodity so they don't have a value.

[Anonymous No.15478862]

>>15477931
>That’s objective, which further proofs this theory.
you fucking moron.

Objective means the peerspective of the subject doesnt matter.

If the product has the same value to the rocks on the surface of Mercury as it does at the WalMart, then it is objective. If not, then the subject is determining value.

[Anonymous No.15478888]

>>15478855
Do you accept mainstream economics? If not, what is your disagreement? This should be simple.

[Anonymous No.15478894]

>>15478888
Accept it how?

[Anonymous No.15478899]

>>15478855
>You can only measure it through price, and you do that by averaging the actual market prices.
Which markets? Across what time period?
Like are you averaging the totality of all price transactions in all markets from the first time something was traded until the end of the universe, or at least until the end of trade?
Sounds rather airyfairy to me.

[Anonymous No.15478913]

>>15478894
Is wikipedia going to trigger you?
>Mainstream neoclassical economics tends to reject the need for an LTV, concentrating instead on the fluctuations of price according to supply and demand using a theory of value based on marginal utility.
Disagree or not? And why? Also I see I transposed a letter, my bad.

[Anonymous No.15478940]

>>15478899
>Which markets? Across what time period?
Whichever you want. You'll never get an exact estimation anyway, except by an accident. But this is the closest possible way to estimating value.

>>15478913
>Is wikipedia going to trigger you?
No, but it's pretty sad that this is the level of knowledge you're operating with.
>Disagree or not?
I agree.

[Anonymous No.15478948]

>>15478940
You agree with the mainstream view that rejects the need for ltv?

[Anonymous No.15478970]

>>15478948
No, I agree that "Mainstream neoclassical economics tends to reject" etc.

[Anonymous No.15479016]

>>15478970
Yeah I thought you might deliberately misread the question, which immediately followed a post asking whether you accept mainstream mainstream economics. Also I asked why you would disagree with it but I think I can guess you would rather not talk about it.

[Anonymous No.15479041]

>>15479016
Disagree with what? You literally don't even know what to ask me because the exact question you would need to ask is not on wikipedia to be copied and pasted.

[Anonymous No.15479100]

>>15478940
>Whichever you want. You'll never get an exact estimation anyway, except by an accident. But this is the closest possible way to estimating value.
I'm asking you. How do you measure objective value? How would you do it right now, in 2020, with the commodity of your choice?
Otherwise the idea of a 'objective value' sounds as pointless as pointing to "the 74562332nd Big Mac Sold" the collective weight of all millionaires. They're hypothetical factoids which are unknowable.
It's easy to proclaim something has objective value yet not even be able to show what it is.

[Anonymous No.15479135]

>>15479100
>How do you measure objective value?
I don't.
>They're hypothetical factoids which are unknowable.
The quantity of value of any particular commodity can't be perfectly estimated, but that doesn't mean we don't know anything about value itself.

[Anonymous No.15479160]

>>15479135
>I don't.
Then you can't argue is has objective value because you can't test it.

[Anonymous No.15479185]

>>15479041
>>15479041
I'll give a view and you can point at the problem with it, and potentially how it is solved by the LTV.

Workers make a trade off between work and leisure. They value their labor differently from the employer so gains can be made from trade. Their labor is not exploited to create the value of the goods; they are benefiting from trade. Both consumer and producers can gain surplus and become better off.

The value of goods are determined subjectively by individuals, who then make a trade-off between money/other goods and the specific good in question. Consumers value the good for sale differently than the producers so gains can be made from trade.

[Anonymous No.15479200]

>>15479185
To be precise this should say producers and consumers have different values on labor relative to money/other goods, and on a good for sale relative to money/other goods, since their valuations are only revealed in relative terms.

[Anonymous No.15479296]

>>15479160
>Then you can't argue is has objective value because you can't test it.
No tests are needed. Just an examination of the object.

>>15479185
>Workers make a trade off between work and leisure.
Does that simply mean that people need to sell their labour power in order to earn a living, but they also want to have time for activities other than wage labour, eating and sleeping? If so then that sounds right.
>They value their labor differently from the employer so gains can be made from trade.
I don't understand what that means.
>Their labor is not exploited to create the value of the goods
It must be exploited, since the essence of value is labour, and capital wouldn't be invested unless it yielded a surplus of value.
>Both consumer and producers can gain surplus and become better off.
What does that mean? Like, if I go to a market and buy a tomato from an agricultural producer? It's true that we both gain in terms of use-value, i.e. I get the physical thing I want to eat and he gets the physical thing (money) that he needs in order to buy things that are required to produce the tomato again and then some. But in terms of exchange value there was no gain. Assuming there was no cheating and miscalculation, which on a large scale would cancel out, I paid 50 cents and got something which costs 50 cents in exchange.

>The value of goods are determined subjectively by individuals
No, the amount of labour required to reproduce a tomato depends on the climate, the technological level of society, etc. And the price of the tomato better correspond to that if the farmer wants to have tomatoes to sell the next season or whatever.

>Consumers value the good for sale differently than the producers so gains can be made from trade.
No. If I buy a tomato for 50 cents that doesn't mean I valued it at 60 cents or anything.

>>15479200
I don't know what that means.

[Anonymous No.15479362]

>>15479296
What's being said is essentially "I value the tomato more than the 50 cents and the producer values the 50 cents more than the tomato"

[Anonymous No.15479395]

>>15477697
>which is regarded as absolute horseshit by virtually every modern economist
Ad populum argument
>muh flat earth
Ad hominem, slander by association and a fabricated one at that. Big brain Marx wins this one, midwit.

[Anonymous No.15479423]

The LTV is wrong because no amount of polishing a turd will make it work a million dollars. The amount of work put into making a good has absolutely zero impact on its value. Value is a purely subjective tradeoff made by an individual. The only reason Marx held to the LTV was because it acts as the moral crux of revolution ("your boss is stealing from you"), without it there's zero reason to give a shit about Marxism. There's a reason the USSR and China both ditched it. Hell, there's a reason literally no one uses the LTV, even academic Marxian, Marxoid, Marxistic, whatever the fuck term you want to slap them with, """"""""""""""economists""""""""""""" have abandoned it as well because it's completely and utterly unreflective of reality. It does not explain empirically observed phenomenon (especially with regards to automation, wherein a fully automated factory steals from no one because there are no workers, a phenomenon Marx says simply will not occur).

[Anonymous No.15479424]

>>15478389
>when resources are limitless. This is not the case right now, and from a scientific point of view is not feasible for the next few centuries.
Imagine being so deluded that you think there will ever be a point where this will occur. Fucking utopians

[Anonymous No.15479425]

>>15477320
What is value?

[Anonymous No.15479427]

>>15478888
In mainstream economics, the value is supposed to be created into the circulation sphere. According to Marx, they are wrong. Value is not created in the circulation sphere, on the market, when goods are exchanged, but in the production sphere, when the good is produced, when it is fabricated. He is totally right. Mainstream economist, whether intentionally, because they are Capital lackey, or unintentionally, because no matter how matter PhD you have, you can still be a retard, those mainstream economists misunderstand where the value is created. It is not created on the market, but inside the factory.

[Anonymous No.15479429]

>>15479423
>The LTV is wrong because no amount of polishing a turd will make it work a million dollars.
Anyone who knows anything about Marxism knows this isn’t what the LTV says. What next, are you going to mention mud pies?

[Anonymous No.15479445]

>>15479429
You're wrong, as that is exactly what the majority of Marxists believe it to be. Case in point: this thread, where Marxists, Marxoids, Marxians, Marxoidians, Marxistians, Marxistics, and Marxoidianistics all take turns defending the argument that
>value comes purely from the amount of work put into making a good

Yes, Marx elaborates further so as to gird his theories from criticisms of the LTV, but he ignores these elaborations and his works derive purely from
>value comes purely from the amount of work put into making a good
because without it there's absolutely zero point to Marxism as a theory, as literally all of Marxist theory comes back to this point.

[Anonymous No.15479454]

>>15479445
Marxism exists independent of what Marxists believe, you stupid chud.

[Anonymous No.15479462]

>>15479454
this is why people say marxism is a religion

its also the single stupidest religion on the planet. at least every single implementation of islam hasnt resulted in mass starvation

[Anonymous No.15479483]

>>15479423
Obviously you have not read Marx.Don't you feel there is something wrong, commenting on something you haven't read? You are not even on a random board, but on /lit.
>The LTV is wrong because no amount of polishing a turd will make it work a million dollars.
Marx's goal was not to subsume the price of unreproducible objects under the law of value. He did not do this because of the simple reason that the law of value has to explain precisely the laws of human productive activities. In his theory of value, Marx does not treat the value of products which 'cannot be reproduced by labor, such as antiques and works of art by certain masters, etc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_value#cite_note-26
>It does not explain empirically observed phenomenon (especially with regards to automation, wherein a fully automated factory steals from no one because there are no workers, a phenomenon Marx says simply will not occur).
First the machine didn't created itself, but was made by previous human work, previous worker. Secondly, a machine doesn't create value by itself. There is no single factory in the whole world who is already fully automated. A machine doesn't create value by itself, it only amplifies the production a worker can make. A machine doesn't create value. It only transmit it's own value into the production process. Only a worker can create value, and the surplus value a worker create, is taken (stolen?) by the Capitalist. In any case, machines makes the workers even more exploited. because they produce, with the help of machine (which don't create value), more value, and the rate of surplus value is higher now than 50 years ago.

[Anonymous No.15479505]

>>15479483
Yes, this was already mentioned in >>15479445
>Yes, Marx elaborates further so as to gird his theories from criticisms of the LTV, but he ignores these elaborations and his works derive purely from
>>value comes purely from the amount of work put into making a good
As you demonstrate, wherein you create a lot of fluff (including a nice excel graph with an unlabeled y axis) to cover up that you're operating from the belief that
>value comes purely from the amount of work put into making a good
in order to morally justify revolution, as if
>value comes purely from the amount of work put into making a good
is not the case then there is no moral point to revolution, because if the LTV isn't true and value doesn't come purely from the amount of work put into making a good, then your boss isn't actually stealing from you at all, you're just unhappy with how he's compensating you because value is purely subjective and not objective as the LTV claims.

I'm not sure why you made this post, given that you are in full agreement with me, you only think you'd be better off after a Revolution than I would (you wouldn't).

[Anonymous No.15479552]

>>15479505
If value is subjective, why is a toothbrush thousands of time less expensive than a car? I can live easily without a car, but without a toothbrush, my life would quicly goes to shit. Isn't it, perhaps, because the toothbrush, even if super useful, with a lot of use value, is produced with only a fraction of the time necessary to fabricate a car?
Why is a ballpoint pen only a fraction of the price of a laptop?
It is, because, is use comparatively, and even proportionely, way, way less working hours than the laptop.
Labor theory is real, and your daily household item have a price which contains basically the amount of labor hours your average factory worker cost. If your freezer cost $1000 and your toaster cost $100, it's basically because your freezer contains ten times more work than your toaster. It's as simple as that. And the reason nobody knows about this, and why it isn't taught in schools, or even university, is because surplus value, the value taken from the workers, is basically a scam. So mainstream economist teach that value is created in the circulation field, on the market, where products are exxchanged, not where they are produced, which is retarded.

[Anonymous No.15479596]

>>15479552
>If value is subjective, why is a toothbrush thousands of time less expensive than a car?
Because the tradeoffs to produce a car are greater than the tradeoffs to produce a toothbrush. This is literally Econ 101, read a fucking book. I can give you dozens of scenarios where a car, despite taking far much more effort to put into making it, would be worth less than a toothbrush. It's the same answer to Marx's shitty understanding of the water vs diamonds problem, wherein diamonds being worth more than water is a bourgeoisie problem that doesn't exist for most people (go to Calcutta and you can find thousands of people who crunch diamonds under their feet every day but would kill for a glass of clean water, despite putting vastly more labor and effort into making diamonds than clean water).

>surplus value is a scam
You are entirely correct, it's snakeoil like flat earth or caloric theory, which is why every economics class tells you exactly what it is and why it's wrong. Given that you're getting your understanding of this topic from youtube videos, it's pretty clear you're genuinely dumber than an American public school attendee.

[Anonymous No.15479599]

>>15479552
Low key cockshott posting

[Anonymous No.15479609]

>>15479362
But that's not value. Value is what the 50 cents expresses. I mean, you can call it value if you wish, but if you do you should understand that you're talking about a different thing than me or Marx.

>>15479423
>The amount of work put into making a good has absolutely zero impact on its value.
That's correct.
>The only reason Marx held to the LTV was because it acts as the moral crux of revolution ("your boss is stealing from you")
No, he held to it because it is correct. He states very clearly in Capital that exchange of labour power against capitalist's money is on average an exchange of equal values, like any other exchange of commodities. Therefore there's no stealing involved.
>There's a reason the USSR and China both ditched it.
Yes, the reason is they were organs of bourgeois counter-revolution. They ditched/falsified all of Marxism.
>Hell, there's a reason literally no one uses the LTV
Communists use it.
>Marxian, Marxoid, Marxistic, whatever the fuck term you want to slap them with, """"""""""""""economists"""""""""""""
Economists are not communists, so obviously they don't use it.
>a fully automated factory steals from no one because there are no workers
Firstly, there are no fully automated factories. Secondly, Marx never claimed that factories have to steal anything.

[Anonymous No.15479627]

>>15479552
>If value is subjective
so what your saying is that because value comes from the amount of labor put into a good, and because value is objective and therefore deterministic, that i could take a turd and polish it so well that you would buy it from me?

[Anonymous No.15479634]

>>15479627
No, don't be silly, value varies person to person.

[Anonymous No.15479645]

>>15479634
well then value isnt fucking objective you stupid biden voting retard

[Anonymous No.15479653]

>>15479596
>I can give you dozens of scenarios where a car, despite taking far much more effort to put into making it, would be worth less than a toothbrush.
Give me some of those example. You are a liar. A functional car would always be worth more than a toothbrush, because it contains always more human work than a toothbrush.
>Marx's shitty understanding of the water vs diamonds problem, wherein diamonds being worth more than water is a bourgeoisie problem that doesn't exist for most people (go to Calcutta and you can find thousands of people who crunch diamonds under their feet every day but would kill for a glass of clean water, despite putting vastly more labor and effort into making diamonds than clean water).
You are a sophist, and a liar. There are no thousands of people in Calcutta who crunch diamonds under their feet every day and do nothing with it. It seems to me that since Capital apologists like you cannot defend it soundly, you try to create an alternate reality, where people will consent to your shit mode of production. That's basically what is happening currently with the Corona disease, alias the phantom menace, a financial crisis is currently happening (negative interest rates since end 2019), so the Capital create a false narrative, a delirium, where there is a mortal virus threatening to kill us every day, in order to divert the attention from the fact that the very system we live on is collapsing.

[Anonymous No.15479685]

>>15479627
You haven't read my previous post. I don't discuss with people who debate in bad faith. You are most likely a paid shill whose objective is to derail the thread, or a rabid anti-marxist. This is what our world gives.
I'll post one more time on the application filed of the LTV:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_value#cite_note-26

[Anonymous No.15479689]

>>15479685

(...)Marx's goal was not to subsume the price of unreproducible objects under the law of value. He did not do this because of the simple reason that the law of value has to explain precisely the laws of human productive activities. In his theory of value, Marx does not treat the value of products which 'cannot be reproduced by labor, such as antiques and works of art by certain masters, etc.'"

[Anonymous No.15479693]

>>15479653
>Give me some of those example
You have a disease that will kill you if you don't brush your teeth in the next five minutes; you'll gladly pay me a million dollars for my toothbrush, but won't pay a dime for my car.

The alternative is that you won't pay me for my lifesaving toothbrush, but you will buy this guy's >>15479627 perfectly polished poop, because if value isn't subjective and the only thing that matters is the amount of work put into it, as you claim, then everyone would have the exact same wants and needs, including you, which means that you admit that there is some amount of labor that guy could put into polishing his poop that would make you buy it, and that you don't value your own life over some arbitrary amount of labor

So, which is it? Will you buy my toothbrush to save your life? Or will you buy the perfectly polished poop? Tick tock, anon, you only have 5 minutes...

[Anonymous No.15479716]

A lot of labor went into this thread and yet it is worthless

[Anonymous No.15479746]

>>15477320
You're blabbering without a unit about something vaguely defined. Your preferences alone can't change anything material only real investment/research can. Marx was only interested in a theoretical long run where prices have to be somewhat "objective" because you need to assume that or you can't rationally talk about anything.

>>15479596
>the tradeoffs to produce a car are greater than the tradeoffs to produce a toothbrush
But why?

>>15479627
What's your opinion on Say's law?

>>15479693
The interesting thing is everything isn't exchanging at radically different prices for everyone all the time because markets are global. That's what capitalism is really all about, creating mass production and distribution.

[Anonymous No.15479772]

>>15479693
>You have a disease that will kill you if you don't brush your teeth in the next five minutes; you'll gladly pay me a million dollars for my toothbrush, but won't pay a dime for my car.
That has nothing to do with values. Obviously in such a scenario the prices in this one particular place in space and time are unrelated to values.

[Anonymous No.15479786]

>>15479693
>You have a disease that will kill you if you don't brush your teeth in the next five minutes; you'll gladly pay me a million dollars for my toothbrush, but won't pay a dime for my car.
I'm against political economy, but even in Capital's political economy, that's not even legal. It's called a State of emergency, and if you do this, you are liable to prosecution.

[Anonymous No.15480007]

>>15479786
(...)Edit: State of necessity.

[Anonymous No.15480029]

>>15480007
(...)Edit: no it's economic violence.

[Anonymous No.15480510]

>>15477320
Seems like you are treating value as something normative. Marxistic LTV doesn´t work like that on moralistic/idealistic grounds, it works like that because it assumes capitalistic market factually works like that.

It assumes that commodities have certain amount of labour required to produce them, which is limited from below by technological development, and that their price will be oscilating around the value of the labour, value of labour being determined socially. Then it derives from that theory all the other memes like explanation for the tendency of the rate of profit to fall etc.

[Anonymous No.15480525]

>>15477320
>objective vs subjective
spook

[Anonymous No.15480534]

>>15480510
>It is not the labour that has a value. Labour, as value-creating activity, can just as little have a particular value as heaviness can have a particular weight, heat a particular temperature, or electricity a particular intensity of current.

[Anonymous No.15480551]

>>15477320
>Value is both A and ¬A

yeah, sure

[Anonymous No.15480571]

>>15477491
yeah, disutility of labor is a thing, but that doesn't mean that value is objective in any kind of way.
there are axes that are more valued than chainsaws and there are horses that are more valued than cars.

[Anonymous No.15480608]

>>15480551
>An object can't be both moving and at rest
>An electron can be both a particle and a wave
Physics has moved on from those errors, but you pathetic philosophy cucks are destined to remain mentally handicapped forever. How does that feel?

>>15480571
If they're different use-values, that is if they possess distinct physical characteristics, then they're different commodities.

[Anonymous No.15480613]

>>15480571
Also, for example, even if one person values a car more than a horse in a certain situation, by continuing to offer that same person a choice between additional units of cars or additional units of horses, he or she can preffer a horse over a car in some point of time.
I may preffer 1 car to 1 horse. I may also preffer 2 cars to 1 car and 1 horse. But I may preffer 2 cars and 1 horse to 3 cars.

[Anonymous No.15480619]

>>15477320
Value is objective in the sense that value is genetic. It's your genes that dictate what you value.

[Anonymous No.15480667]

>>15480608
Well, the same axe and chainsaw can be valued differently in different conditions. If I don't know how to use a chainsaw, then I value the axe more. But, if I learn how to use it in some point in the future, I can start to value the chainsaw more than the axe.
The same cup of water has different values to me when I'm thirsty and when I'm not.

[Anonymous No.15480699]

>>15480667
>If I don't know how to use a chainsaw, then I value the axe more. But, if I learn how to use it in some point in the future, I can start to value the chainsaw more than the axe.
This is not about what you value in some retarded lonely island fantasy but about how much it costs to buy some average type of chainsaw relatively to some average type of axe, in a store.

[Anonymous No.15480726]

>>15477333
>How objective is the value of commodity? What makes it objective?

One could make a economic theory of objective value using EVOLUTIVE VALUE as a reference.

How you can say that something has "real" value and not "subjetive" (non real) value?
If it helps the biological imperative of humans as animals, namely, if it helps adaptative behavior.
Wich means, help a human to survive and reproduce.

Some examples would be food, wich is needed for survival or even jewlry and sport cars. Why jewelry and sport cars? Because "social status" fullill a human evolutionary imperative.

At the same time we could say that some things have no "real value". For example pornography doesn't actually help the biological imperative, actually pornography hack into the human primitive mind, pornography consumption is a maladaptative behavior.
Smoking pot is a maladaptative behavior.
Cutting your balls off is a maladaptative behavior.
Almost all vices are maladaptative behaviors and by this theory of value should be considered to have NO REAL VALUE and only SUBJECTIVE VALUE.

Of course to put something like this in a theory you should acknowledge that an objective reality exist, that leftism and marxism are complete bullshit and that humans have a NATURE.
All those things are beyond leftist scope.

[Anonymous No.15480731]

>>15480699
So you're talking about price, not value.

[Anonymous No.15480741]

>>15480731
I'm talking about both, since in a capitalist society that is able to reproduce itself price must be an expression of value.

[Anonymous No.15480759]

>>15480726
>Smoking pot is a maladaptative behavior.
What if smoking pot increases your chance of having children?

[Anonymous No.15480795]

>>15477361
I'm an amateur, but doesn't that make use-value just the aggregate value humanity subjectively places on the object? For example a dog finds no value in the axe at all.

[Anonymous No.15480854]

>>15477320
I don't think so, faggot.

[Anonymous No.15480867]

>>15477697
Holy fucking shit anon, are you seriously implying that there is any economist worth their salt on /biz/?
Mother of all Keks i wish i was this retarded, id definitely live a happier life.
Oh and the labour theory is a great starting point to create any decent analysis of the economic value of things. Just because you don't agree with it it does not mean a person with a brain cant use it as the base of a better reflection.

[Anonymous No.15480885]

Ugh, I love these threads but I hopped pretty late and I don't want to read the 145 replies. What's the current state of the debate?

[Anonymous No.15480900]

>>15478264
>Value and price must be separate because the moment of production is separate from the moment of sale. If I have a commodity, then there undeniably are two separate facts about it: how much resources would it take to reproduce it and how much resources would it fetch on the market. The two correspond to value and price.
So value is cost of production? That's subjective because it's literally a set of prices that are derived from another set of prices that are derived from another set of prices ad nauseam (all of which operate under supply and demand)
It's a pointless, circular invisible points that can never be determined objectively since all of the things it aspires too are completely subjective

[Anonymous No.15480910]

>>15480900
No, value isn't cost of production. That was Smith's theory, which Ricardo had already rejected. Value is the socially necessary labour time, regardless of the relation between wages and profits.

[Anonymous No.15481235]

>>15480900
>So value is cost of production?
No. I don't know why shove "subjective" in there, but it's true that explaining prices by means of prices is tautological.

[Anonymous No.15481610]

>>15480885
It has devolved into shit flinging.

[Anonymous No.15482254]

>>15477320

I would say that rather something has an "objective" value & a subjective value. I used quotation marks for the "objective" value because that value is only based on its value in a particular circumstance. For example, for a beast, its value may be less or more than for a human. Also, the subjective value of an object may be less than its objective as people can underestimate things.

[Anonymous No.15482278]

But use value also contains subjective preferences of the purchaser/consumer so I don't know what your point is.

[Anonymous No.15482501]

>>15480910
A worker would still value the time spent on labour to produce a certain good differently from another worker. I.e: "should I be able to buy x or y from working this amount of time?". Every worker would probably give a different answer to this question.

[Anonymous No.15483101]

>>15477320
Bump