/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15690374]

It seems that whenever Marx is brought up, anons argue that his LTV was wrong and then shitflinging between the Marxists and non-Marxists continues until the thread is dead.

With that said, why is the LTV wrong then? Marxists, why is the LTV a correct analysis?

If the LTV is wrong, is there still a viable alternative to Capitalism?

[Anonymous No.15690391]

>>15690374
Because 'average labor' doesn't mean anything

[Anonymous No.15690416]

>>15690391
Explain

[Anonymous No.15690447]

>>15690374
Marxism is interesting in places, but is simply no replacement for common sense.

[Anonymous No.15690494]

>>15690374
I don´t really thing that wrong/correct dichotomy applies. It´s more how well does the model work in certain markets and certain times; what are it´s limitations etc.

ATM I don´t think it really applies well due to massive disparity between labour costs across one globalized market and the fact China makes up for like 40% of world´s manufacturing. Then there´s the American FED and it´s monetary domination of the rest of world. It´s possible some big brain will be able to accomodate for these pertubarations, but it would need to be a really big brain.

>If the LTV is wrong, is there still a viable alternative to Capitalism?
Duh, LTV has nothing to do with viability of alternative economic systems.

[Anonymous No.15690954]

>>15690447
how does the LTV go against common sense?
>>15690494
if the LTV isn't true, doesn't Marxist theory fall apart?

[Anonymous No.15690960]

>>15690374
>If the LTV is wrong, is there still a viable alternative to Capitalism?
The LTV is blatantly wrong and anyone with common sense or a micro-economics textbook can acknowledge that.

The problem with Marxists on this board is that they don't realize that the plain-as-fact existence of market mechanisms and economic laws makes no normative claims about the desirability of any sociopolitical system. They're certainly no defense of "capitalism". If we say all assumptions of standard market models hold, and we then introduce externalities into the model that create market inefficiencies, orthodox economists will more than happily introduce an enlightened despot to solve them.

[Anonymous No.15690972]

>>15690374
>With that said, why is the LTV wrong then?
Because the value of a good or service is (empirically) not determined by the labor expended in its production.

[Anonymous No.15691247]

>>15690374
LTOV is true for what Marx was writing about like commodities but isn't a global rule, stuff like Supreme shirts disprove that it can be applied to anything.

[Anonymous No.15691275]

>>15691247
LTV doesn't hold under any circumstance. If you think it does, you're most likely conflating labor being a proportionally large economic input, and therefore a significant determinant of the reservation price, with Marx' conceptualization

[Anonymous No.15691308]

>>15691247
Baudrillard "sign value" theory explains this very well

[Anonymous No.15691315]

>>15690374
The value of a good or service is subjective to each individual's needs, means, and goals. This is why people trade at all.

[Anonymous No.15691323]

>>15691247
LTOV is not even close to true for commodities.

[Anonymous No.15691359]

>>15691308
no it doesn't. prestige is literally a form of utility and commonly accepted as such within orthodox economics. Baudrillard is retarded.

[Anonymous No.15691381]

LTOV is an ontology of economics with moral implications, not a predictive model of pricing. Anyone that says otherwise is a retard

[Anonymous No.15691400]

>>15691359
>MUH ECONOMICS

>It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately
- Einstein

[Anonymous No.15691425]

>>15690960
would you not say that orthodox economists have a normative framework that is encompassed in the 'all else equal' assumptions about human behavior that powers the models? economics is not impervious to ideology, i would think.

[Anonymous No.15691500]

>>15691425
"All else equal" is a modelling assumption not a normative assumption, dummy.

[Anonymous No.15691506]

how does ltv accomodate for a lemon market

that and it is impossible within the context of ideal communism. ltv only works if an authoritarian state is enforcing it.

[Anonymous No.15691554]

>>15691500
answer my question, please. i recognize that this encompasses that nothing changes so that the model can work—what i meant is that after all you're left with is assumptions about human behavior and good outcomes vs. bad outcomes. a utilitarian calculus accompanied by some fundamental belief in innate human selfishness that drives the theory behind market operations/dwl/decision-making is shot through with ideology. i worded that poorly but how is economics a non-normative field? are you capable of doing anything aside from recommending "a micro-economics textbook" in every thread?

[Anonymous No.15691614]

>>15691554
Idiot. What causes X? What would Y lead to?

[Anonymous No.15691640]

>>15691400
How does that change anything about Baudrillard's concept being irrelevant? Economic models obviously have less explanatory power. That's the natural consequence of dealing with the innate variance in human behavior and not a slight against the science.

>>15691425
>>15691554
Most assumptions follow pretty intuitively and only function to remove the noise that results from human variance or simplify the resulting formulas and matrices.

>assumptions about human behavior
A human being acting in its own self-interest might've been an assumption in The Wealth of Nations but it isn't anymore. Unless you reject Darwinism and any modern findings in evolutionary biology? There is nothing inherently ideological about it, and it certainly isn't normative (unless you think orthodox economists like and want to promote selfishness).

>are you capable of doing anything aside from recommending "a micro-economics textbook" in every thread?
That's not a very good point, since that entire statement is a satire upon the average Marxist on /lit/ that can do nothing but say "read Marx" or "you haven't read Marx" when they themselves have no idea what anything in this image is meant to represent.

[Anonymous No.15691678]

>>15691381
this, there really isn't much difference between marginalism and LTV in terms of scientific value, both are pseudoscientific research programs heavily charged with ideological content which weigh on their respective narratives. there is no data that could disprove marginalism because you can always attribute the deviation from the law of demand to the fact that ceteris paribus was not satisfied, on the other hand LTV fails because of heterogeneity of labour (to the Marxist that will try to respond to this - the distinction between abstract and concrete labour is not a solution when wage rates of workers employed in various industries differ considerably, not to mention the absurd ad hoc assumption that skilled labour is to be counted as a multiple of ordinary labour) and the abstract notion of socially necessary labour time which renders it unmeasurable. if anyone of you finds him or herself dissatisfied with mainstream neoliberal economics as well as heterodox radical economics read Nitzan and Bichler "Capital as Power", it dissects both discourses beautifully

[Anonymous No.15691744]

>>15691640
thanks for the response—i suppose 1.) i'm thinking about how field of economic study is correlated with ideology and 2.) within the same field of economics, how left vs. right leaning economists sometimes come to different course-of-action conclusions but also different numerical outputs. if the goal is, say, reducing market inefficiency, left vs. right economists will often come to different conclusions given the same data. all that i'm saying is that economics is not perfect. sometimes models fail because of the problem of assuming rationality/the definition of rationality (i know behavioral economics takes a diff position but i'm referencing rational choice theory in traditional economics)—economists have to make both methodological and ideological decisions when designing and interpreting their models, and the fact that there are different movements within economics speaks to as much. wrt intuition/assumptions behind the methods of creating the models it seems to me like there are implicit value judgments. i am not an economist in any sense but i have a background in math and i am very familiar with labor economics and had to take some traditional micro/macro and behavioral classes. i just don't know if methodological purity exists in economics when the science drives policy change. i think rationality looks different in different societies, broadly, and on the single-human level there's even more diversity in decision-making.

[Anonymous No.15693142]

>>15690374
Value is arbitrary. The banana stuck to a wall is a great example. You stick a banana to a wall, worthless. Some famous artist, priceless.

[Anonymous No.15693157]

>>15693142
Social capital

[Anonymous No.15693198]

>>15690954
>if the LTV isn't true, doesn't Marxist theory fall apart?
Yes, LTV is the Core of Marxism after all.

[Anonymous No.15693257]

>>15690416
"average" labor would be the summed and divided production of every individual capable or engaged in a certain task. It's impossible to gatter that data, and supposed you were able to, not only do you need to do it yearly as new people are added but daily since the production rate varies daily with most people for a myriad of reasons.
Even IF you somehow managed to do it even gather all of that data constantly in order to get a value of labor/hour it would still be stupid to apply it as Jim who is able to build a hundred watches of average quality a day should not have his watches be worth less because Tim can only build 1 of the same quality.

And that is assuming the theory is right to assign a blanket value of labor instead of it just having it be bound by supply and demand, if people want watchmakers to make watches the will be valued if they don't they are not valued, as any other service or product.

[Anonymous No.15693339]

>>15693142
Just by your example you've shown that value isn't arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.15693359]

>>15693339
Maybe not arbitrary but certainly not "rational" in way easily explainable by any ideology.
If people want to give something value they do it, that is it.

[Anonymous No.15693482]

>>15690374
The field of application of the law of value is limited to new output by producers of traded, reproducible labour-products.
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#Field_of_application

[Anonymous No.15693522]

>>15693142
>The banana stuck to a wall is a great example. You stick a banana to a wall,
The field of application of the law of value is limited to new output by producers of traded, reproducible labour-products.
Application to the banana stuck to a wall:
New output by producer: Yes.
Traded products: No.
Reproducible labor products: Yes, however, if done by a famous artist with connection in New york galeries: No.

Banana stuck to a wall. doesn't enter into the field of application of the labor theory of value.

[Anonymous No.15693523]

>>15693482
You keep repeating this but this is false. Is bread not reproducible now? what about food in general? Are cars unable to be reproduced? are, watches, for example? what about clothes? Why would a economic theory that ignores the biggest industry, the services industry, hold any value in this day and age?

[Anonymous No.15693534]

>>15693522
Then almost nothing does you faggot.

[Anonymous No.15693587]

>>15693523
>Is bread not reproducible now? what about food in general? Are cars unable to be reproduced? are, watches, for example? what about clothes?
Bread, food, cars, watches, clothes (except luxury clothes, because not reproducible), obey the labor theory of value. You just don't see it. The value of a particular item, is roughly proportional to the amount of labor it contains, i.e the amount of average prices labor (minimum wage), it cost to produce it. This, of course, must take into account cumulative amount of labor. E.G: a toaster use a particular amount of labor to make the toaster, but the amount necessary to create raw materials the toaster is made off, have to be taken into account. If you addition the total of the amount of labor, it is proportional to the final value, and even final exchange value, aka price.

[Anonymous No.15694382]

LTOV says that 'value' is aggregate energy input, critics say 'value' = price and demand to know why price doesn't equal aggregate energy, when no one has ever claimed that, because they don't read.

[Anonymous No.15694482]

The labour theory of value is the natural conservational laws of the universe governing capitalist economy. The way capitalist investment works, is that both parties, the investor and the owner of company invested in both profit if the business is considered "successful."

But how can this be possible? Neither the owner nor the investor did any work (strictly from a Newtonian point of view). Someone had to lose out in the transaction. Somewhere down the line, assuming that goods and money have actual substance in the mind-independent reality, for every gain there is an equal loss.

This is of course, on the shoulder of the labourer. The one who does not own, do not collect the profit, but rather, work for a fixed wage or fixed salary. They are the metaphysical and physical losers of Capitalism. This is what is meant by the labour theory of value.

[Anonymous No.15694493]

>>15690447
>labour theory of value means every hour of work is equal
Reddit tier tertiary

[Anonymous No.15694519]

>>15690374
>Marxism

[Anonymous No.15695013]

I've never read Marx, what's LTV? Explain it so a brainlet can understand it pl0x

[Anonymous No.15695025]

>Marxism

[Anonymous No.15695051]

>>15690374
something modern economists don't seem to get is the philosophical nuance behind marx's position. he isn't using the LTV to explain prices, not directly at least. the point is he's exposing a contradiction in capitalism: things are being charged for more than they're "worth"
think of the feeling you get when you see that a ptoduct that costs 30 dollars to buy took like 5 dollars to make. or when your boss makes 15 dollars for every 2 dollars you make. these intuitions don't make sense unless we have something other than price to judge the value of something of
it should explain why the LTV is still popular in sociology and anthropology despite falling out of favor in the pseudoscience of neoclassical economics

[Anonymous No.15695071]

>>15695051
>ptoduct
*product

[Anonymous No.15695261]

FUCK ECONOMISTS

[Anonymous No.15695337]

>>15695013
Labor Theory of Value https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/labor-theory-of-value.asp

[Anonymous No.15695368]

>>15690374
to be fair to marx, it isnt surprising that his theories from two centuries ago have flaws. just like economists wont take adam smith work that serious, or physicists have moved on from newton. they are still good to understand to know how the field has developed, even if not entirely accurate. it is also important to separate his philosophical work from his flawed economics

[Anonymous No.15695376]

>>15695051
>it should explain why the LTV is still popular in sociology and anthropology despite falling out of favor in the pseudoscience of neoclassical economics
my, so persuasive!

>>15695368
dude, did you even read the post? economics is a pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.15695388]

>>15695376
then marx was a pseudoscientist? that's too bad

[Anonymous No.15695469]

>>15695376
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/economics/#PoppAppr
>Given Popper’s falsificationism, there seems little hope of understanding how extreme simplifications can be legitimate or how current economic practice could be scientifically reputable. Economic theories and models are almost all unfalsifiable, and if they were, the widespread acceptance of Friedman’s methodological views would insure that they are not subjected to serious test. When models apparently fail tests, they are rarely repudiated. Economists conclude instead merely that they chose the wrong model for the task, or that there were disturbing causes. Economic models, which have not been well tested, are often taken to be well-established guides to policy, rather than merely conjectures. Critics of neoclassical economics have made these criticisms (Eichner 1983), but most of those who have espoused Popper’s philosophy of science have not repudiated mainstream economics and have not been harshly critical of its practitioners.
>>15695388
read the subtitle of capital

[Anonymous No.15695499]

>>15695469
>Economic theories and models are almost all unfalsifiable
WOW!!!
>most of those who have espoused Popper’s philosophy of science have not repudiated mainstream economics
hmmmmm.........

[Anonymous No.15695504]

>>15695499
the author of the SEP article is opposed to neoclassical economics. your philosophically illiterate claim that well-read people accept neoclassical economics is simply false. do your research

[Anonymous No.15695520]

>>15695469
"a critique of political economy"? what does this have to do with the fact that marx is considered an economist which according to you makes him a pseudoscientist?

[Anonymous No.15695545]

>>15695520
he isn't an economist, he's critiquing economics. unless you want to start saying popper is a marxist

[Anonymous No.15695578]

>>15695545
i should be clear and say that not all marxists share my view on this. many do though, mostly those of the type characterized by the neue marx-lekture

[Anonymous No.15695628]

Refute Ian Wright (PhD in Economics, Professor at the Open University of the UK) and maybe I'll take you seriously when you say the LTV is wrong

https://ianwrightsite.wordpress.com/2017/04/27/why-the-labour-theory-of-value-is-true/

[Anonymous No.15695641]

Just take a look at what the most expensive things are on the market and think if hits relates in anyway to the labour that it took.

[Anonymous No.15695647]

Neoclassical economics is the bugman equivalent of astrology.

[Anonymous No.15695656]

>>15695641
>Look at monopolies
>LTV doesn't apply to monopolies
>Did I just own the commies????
Wew

[Anonymous No.15695666]

>>15693339
Yeah and also that i has nothing to do with the labour taken to produces such thing.
I can now update dumb shit that refutes Marx theory:
-ethots on the internet selling pictures
-moder 'art'
-psuedo-science books

[Anonymous No.15695676]

>>15695628
>Open University
He's refuted himself

[Anonymous No.15695680]

>>15695656
>Sell a pencil
>'Hey guise this pencil took 5 hours to create therefore I will charge you 10 shekel'
>I can make it in under an hour so ill give 1 shekel
>'Oy vey!'

[Anonymous No.15695716]

>>15695545
he is considered an economist by many as he furthered some economics ideas of his day and critiquing economics does not make him outside the field. there is literally a school of economics called marxian economics. you are just delusional and want to act as if economics is a pseudoscience as it goes against your views, but also your hero that is an economist is actually one of the good boys that dindu nuffin

[Anonymous No.15695741]

>>15695680
>doesn't understand the concept of an 'average' or a quotient.
Weew

[Anonymous No.15695759]

>>15690374
What is the value of labour? Marx's argument in Wage Labour and Capital is the value of labour is the labour required to maintain and re-create labour which doesn't strike me as a satisfying answer. In one sense he's saying that the value of labour is labour which is just an infinite regress. In another he's saying that the value of labour is its demand for goods which would mean he's agreeing with the guy he's arguing against.

How is the value of labour transformed into price? There's a lot to go into with this question and unlike the average Marxist discussion it's actually interesting.

[Anonymous No.15695797]

I believe a lot of the problems stem from a misunderstanding of what is meant by labor.
Labor does not only mean how much time is spent trying to cut with a spoon. Labor also means the amount of time and all the factors it took to come up with the idea to use a knife. Both create a valuable item based on how much labor was involved. Thee is a back and forth between innovation, manual labor and social use that all fall under the defintion of labor that determines an item's value.

[Anonymous No.15695804]

>>15695759
>How is the value of labour transformed into price?
It is an empirical fact that the price of a commodity is proportional to the average labor time needed to produce it. See:

https://youtu.be/emnYMfjYh1Q?t=111

[Anonymous No.15695835]

>>15695676
>heh, for a minute there I was scared I had to engage with your arguments, but then I realized you hadn't conformed to bourgeois protocols of prestige and realized that you were wrong because of that
Nice. It's like the mutated offspring of ignoring someone's argument if they make a typo.

[Anonymous No.15696940]

>>15695741
There is no way to know what 'average labour' is.

[Anonymous No.15696952]

>>15696940
Division is not a difficult arithmetic operation, son.

[Anonymous No.15697248]

>>15695716
>economics does not make him outside the field. there is literally a school of economics called marxian economics
the marxists like myself who reject labrlling him as an economist also deny the marxism of marxian economics

[Anonymous No.15697258]

>>15697248
>labrlling
*labelling

[Anonymous No.15697292]

>>15690954
>if the LTV isn't true, doesn't Marxist theory fall apart?
Yes, but Marxist theory doesn´t have anything to do with whatever there are alternatives to capitalism or not.

[Anonymous No.15697334]

>>15697292
Nobody is saying that "capitalism" (not as in the free trade of good without the innervation of the state but the corporatism that permeates several countries) isn't without it's flaws and that c change would be good. But trying to change a "capitalistic" system only to tr and implement a Marxist one is retarded.

[Anonymous No.15697567]

>>15695666
>Yeah and also that i has nothing to do with the labour taken to produces such thing.
>I can now update dumb shit that refutes Marx theory:
>-ethots on the internet selling pictures
>-moder 'art'
>-psuedo-science books

>>15695680
>Sell a pencil
>'Hey guise this pencil took 5 hours to create therefore I will charge you 10 shekel'
>I can make it in under an hour so ill give 1 shekel
>'Oy vey!'
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#Field_of_application

[Anonymous No.15697823]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-IxqCgB6FXc

Here's something for the portuguese speakers.

[Anonymous No.15697860]

>>15697823
Macaco marxista não e bem vindo no /lit/. Pelos menos aqueles sem a capacidade de argumentar seus pontos por si mesmos, escondendo-se atrás de vídeos de retardados do youtube.

[Anonymous No.15697924]

>>15697334
>Nobody is saying that "capitalism" (not as in the free trade of good without the innervation of the state but the corporatism that permeates several countries) isn't without it's flaws and that c change would be good.
You cannot change the internal contradictions. You didn't noticed it, but anything that could be done to save Capitalism has already been tried, or is currently tried.
Current negative interest rates is one of these measures.
Next step, in this crisis, or the next one, in 10-12 years, is to nationalize the economical sectors which are not profitable anymore. Not because boo-hoo socialists governement, but because if a necessary sector like water distribution or roads is not protitable anymore, what choice do the government have other than nationalize it? So the future of liberal Capitalism might be State Capitalism. I would prefer a total collapse, and then switching directly to communal production, but what will happen instead is probably Orwellian socialist State Capitalism.