/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"I ain’t driving twenty minutes to riot"

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion. Join the Matrix: https://matrix.to/#/+leftychat:matrix.org Visit the Booru: https://lefty.booru.org/

(395.16 KB 855x960 1593018160083.png)
Anonymous 06/24/2020 (Wed) 20:26:53 No. 638070
Let's talk about the Labor Theory of Value. Is the LTV still valid in today's modern society? If it's wrong, does Marxism fall apart? What are some leftist alternatives to the LTV?
IMO it's the sketchiest part of Marx's work, the logic seem a little forced. But at the same time it's the part with the grandest vision, there's else nothing comparable in economics or philosophy.
>>638080 Well LTV was pretty accepted theory back then
>>638080 What if it's wrong though? Does that mean all of Marx is wrong then?
>>638090 No, that's stupid logic. >>638089 Keen's ETV is superior.
>>638080 >IMO it's the sketchiest part of Marx's work, the logic seem a little forced. Explain or fuck off
>>638109 >keen's ETV what's that?
>>638151 Exchange theory of value. I gotta look up on it more
>>638109 >Keen's ETV tl;dr? >>638080 >the logic seem a little forced. Not really. Besides, once everything has been accounted for, labor + rent/profit seems to be the only thing to determine prices. price = wage + price of capital + rent/profit And the price of capital follows the same formula. Once simplified, you get price = wage + rent/profit
>>638090 No because the tendency of the falling rate of profit was one they haven't disproved
>>638080 LTV doesn't come from Marx. Pretty much everyone outside of neoclassical econ subscribes to LTV because it's just so fucking obvious. >valuable things exist because of labor, either to make them or obtain them >the value they have represents what the producer sees as recouping their expenses to produce it The idea that value comes from subjectivity or marginal utility or something like that is an aberration historically that was imposed by people who made an effort to mislead the public about the nature of the economy.
>>638070 Capitalists to this day have never refuted the LTV nor answered the problem it was originally made to solve: what happens when supply and demand are in equilibrium. They know they can't answer it without the LTV, so instead they mystefied and idealised economics by claiming its "subjective" and not knowable or material. Probably the most blatent example of thi is Rand's "objectivism" where absolutely everything is objective, except for the sacred cow of value, which Randism contends is subjective. Out of all the things in the universe, both known and unknown, everything is objective except the one thing that invalidates the concept that capitalism is fair.
>>638151 >>638154 >Keen has attempted to counter Karl Marx's theory (in his view Marx's pre-1857 view, specifically) from a post-Keynesian perspective, by arguing that machines can add more product-value over their operational lifetime than the total value of depreciation charged "during those asset lives". For example, the total value of sausages produced by a sausage machine over its useful life might be greater than the value of the machine. Depreciation, he implies, was the weak point in Marx's social accounting system all along. Keen argues that all factors of production can add new value to outputs. However he gives credit to Marx for contributing to the "financial instability hypothesis" of Hyman Minsky. while I see what Keen is saying, what are the actual implications of this difference between cost and productive output of a machine for Marx's interpretation of Capitalism?
>>638070 we've been over this guys. Smith/Ricardo's/Marx's (vol 1.) version of the LTV bas been empirically proven to explain 95%+ of the difference in prices. The LTV is true in the same way newtonian physics is true - not 100% but close enough for the vast majority of cases
>>638220 >For example, the total value of sausages produced by a sausage machine over its useful life might be greater than the value of the machine. And where does he think that this value comes form exactly?
>>638220 As I understood Capital, the value a machine adds to the product is not directly determined by the particular case but by the societal average.
>>638286 >Smith/Ricardo's/Marx's (vol 1.) version of the LTV Ricardo and Marx's LTV isn't quite the same as Smith's.
>>638080 are you aware marx didn't invent all of this stuff but was talked about from liberals of his period? like the falling of the rate of profits it's not a marxist prophecy but was talked on by Smith, Ricardo and such
>>638070 >Is the LTV still valid in today's modern society? Of course https://ianwrightsite.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/general-theory-labour-value2.pdf
No and it never has been. It doesn't have a stake on the intellectual labor that is oh so relevant in modern society. Marx and the people here will rail against the CEOs and management but those are the real individuals, people who can't be exchanged like the normal worker. They're the ones who do the intellectual labor alongside engineers and the ilk. They are the ones who create value, workers just realize it. LTV has no place in modern society since intellectual labor and people who do it far outweight the workers. There are individuals and masses in a company, people who can be replaced and those who cannot. Your labor has no value if someone else can do it.
>>638404 Cool, show the math then.
>>638404 >Your labor has no value if someone else can do it. how is this different now and not the last century?
>>638404 Both intellectual and physical labor are forms of useful human labor, Marx didn't make any distinction between the two.
>>638404 >Tfw not knowing what the LTV actually is <He thinks value refers to the subjective way that you say trees or love is “valuable” Dunning-Kruger is a bitch
>>638404 Weren't workers interchangeable in Marx's time? And I don't think CEO's are that indispensable. Maybe you have a point with Engineers, but I work in STEM and I can tell you there's a bunch of Indians qualified to take my job.
>>638425 >Smugly posts "you're wrong" but never posts the right answer. Why does /leftypol/ do this?
>>638404 >tfw worker cooperatives exist and function in the market just fine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emnYMfjYh1Q Cockshott-oyassan has a video on LTV
>>638438 Because it's not worth the effort. We're tired of dealing with the same shitty arguments every day, and we know from experience you're not gonna listen to anything we have to say, you'll just say "cope harder leftoid" and post some soyjack or something and then move goalposts.
>>638438 For example, several of us here have posted actual sources explaining why they think the LTV still holds. Whereas you people just come up here, say some shit, and then when pressed, either ignore requests for anything to back up what you say or just go "lol I don't owe you commies an explanation use google lol"
>>638460 >>638452 I'm sure that's true that people do that, but not everyone is arguing in bad faith. We you fail to put forth what you think the correct argument is you make Marxism look like a cult. If you're so tired of people ignoring your arguments, why do you bother arguing with them at all.
>>638460 >>638452 You know that's not even me and I was writing a post quoting every reply I got but if that's your attitude then it was all for naught. There is no reason to discuss this futher if you choose not to engage in it beyond witty comments and gotchas
>>638479 1. Because sometimes, we see an argument so bad we can't help but take the bait You ever see something so gallingly stupid, so utterly stuffed with the most pissbaby-brained strawmen you've ever seen in your life, and there's a small part of your brain that takes over because as far as you can remember, it's the dumbest shit you've seen anybody say? Basically one of those situations 2. Honestly, again, the fact that you're just going "hahaha well you're just a cult" just proves my point. We've been dealing with this shit since /leftypol/ started on 8chan, and frankly, we know better than to think any of you give a shit of what we have to say.
LTV is yet to be debunked
>>638488 Yeah, except we've been dealing with so many of you types who start out claiming you're coming on here in good faith, only for the thread to just go to shit in a mass of angry shitposts, fallacies so bad it would make a phil 101 freshman's head explode, and let's not forget a friendly helping of >cope >seethe >dilate so forgive us for being jaded, but the simple fact that you sound like every wannabe-debater who waltzes on here making the same shitty arguments we've all made earnest replies to a thousand times over makes us just a bit skeptical. And let's be real, nobody goes into a web forum/board belonging to an opposing ideological camp without some element of "lolololol imma own them" floating around in the back of their mind
>>638391 thats true, but marx's vol.1, ricardo, and smiths versions of the theory are more similar than what marx says in vol 3
>>638493 >>638493 >You ever see something so gallingly stupid, so utterly stuffed with the most pissbaby-brained strawmen you've ever seen in your life, and there's a small part of your brain that takes over because as far as you can remember, it's the dumbest shit you've seen anybody say? Basically one of those situations Sure, but when I respond it's with the understanding that that belief is held by a lot of people, and while I won't change the mind of the person I'm talking to, I could change the minds of a lot of lurkers. >2. Honestly, again, the fact that you're just going "hahaha well you're just a cult" just proves my point. We've been dealing with this shit since /leftypol/ started on 8chan, and frankly, we know better than to think any of you give a shit of what we have to say. See, this post just drips with disdain. I'm not an alt righter, and yes when all your posts consists of "GODDAMN IT YOUR WRONG" you do look like a cult. As though what you believe must be accepted uncritically. And yeah, I have read Marx, and it's great, but far too many Marxist proselytize Marxism. Whenever someone is incredulous of Marx you guys lose your temper. That's the hallmark of someone with a shaky philosophical foundation. But you know what, it's what ever. You are clearly more interested in being an eternal martyr for grievances suffered on 8chan. Which was a Nazis safe haven so you were basically asking for it.
>>638500 Yeah, what you say is all true, but the people on this chan dish it out as well. When I roughhouse with people, I don't expect politeness back.
>try explaining that there are no commodities that can be produced with out labour I doesn't work >try using Occams Razor like Cockshott did It doesn't work >try linking that on study by Anwar Shaikh It doesn't work >try pointing out that the LTV can make predictions and that the predictions that have been made by Marx mostly became true It doesn't work What other methods are there to convince others, when reasoning fails?
>>638541 Were you the poster of >>638404? If so, why couldn't you just save everyone the trouble and explain your idea thoroughly or cite your sources instead of just waltzing in with your schlong out and expecting people to take you seriously?
>>638541 Well, I'll be blunt, you may not be an alt-rigther, but we've seen enough alt-righters come on here with the exact same demeanor that it makes us sceptical. >Whenever someone is incredulous of Marx you guys lose your temper. I can't speak for anyone else, but I generally don't really give a shit. There's left theories apart from Marxism. >I'm not an alt righter, and yes when all your posts consists of "GODDAMN IT YOUR WRONG" you do look like a cult Again, try looking at it from our perspective. We're not averse to debating in good faith, we're just really, really jaded. So if you're not an alt-righter, fine, that's my bad. But it's not a matter of being a martyr for shit that happened on a past website, it's a matter of "Yeah I've seen this shit before, I have other shit to worry about, I'm not wasting my energy when right now I'd bet $20 that this guy is just gonna turn out to be another /pol/yp"
>>638500 Well if that's what you think? I won't argue about it, I won't reply to you but can you tell me how LTV measures the worth intellectual labor? Lets say worker creates a stool and gets paid this much money and the excess value goes to the company. How do you know when he is being under or over-compensated for his physical labor compared to the people who get the excess? How will you measure it's worth? Yeah, I don't know shit but could you help me out. I won't argue, I won't reply.
LTV is a bit like "spatially extended objects exclude each other," it's something that the smartest people in the world used to think was provable on logical grounds; it isn't, but it's still close enough to true that you can use it to understand reality in a useful way. >>638546 >What other methods are there to convince others, when reasoning fails? Find a more useful conversation to have.
>>638564 I mean, my first question right off the bat would be why you're working off the set of assumptions that you have, and more concretely, by what specific causal mechanisms you claim the "intellectual labor" or the CEO or entrepeneur functions as the source of value
>>638564 >can you tell me how LTV measures the worth intellectual labor? Lets say worker creates a stool and gets paid this much money and the excess value goes to the company. How do you know when he is being under or over-compensated for his physical labor compared to the people who get the excess? How will you measure it's worth? 1) LTV emerges from the scarcity of time not the special properties of muscle or brain. 2) Determining whether a particular worker is over- or under-compensated isn't a particularly useful thing to consider - the predictive/analytic power of the theory all come from looking how much labor is done in aggregate.
>>638564 the LTV doesn't measure intellectual labor because it deems intellectual labor subservient to physical labor.
It should be understood that Marx was specifically explaining the prices of commodities, not "this is an explanation for the value of everything". Land, for example, is produced by natural forces rather than human labor, and the landowner is simply claiming the territory and has a deed saying he owns such-and-such land. Intellectual property - which today is very monetized and a considerable part of economic activity - isn't a commodity in the sense Marx was describing in capital, and when you do think of intellectual property as the primary thing to be exchanged, the LTV runs into problems. Still, in the main, we are an industrial society, in which quantities of freely reproducible commodities is the main objective of industrial firms, and even those firms that deal with intellectual property have to enter a marketplace dominated by commodity production. Capitalism as a system itself also runs into some major problems with developing intellectual property or a knowledge base, such as the difficulty of ascertaining the actual monetary "value" of this intellectual property. If you do propose an "information economy" as the norm, capitalism is a really bad system for that, and even capitalists can recognize the problems inherent in this. Capital was looking at commodity production and circulation, and in that specific case, the labor theory of value makes a lot of intuitive sense, because the relation of waged labor is necessary for commodity production (this is true even with automated factories, since the machines to build those factories eventually come back to human labor). Further, the wages of workers remains today the core of the economic engine, even those who are not in directly productive endeavors or whose productive work isn't as easily commodified. You can't really speak of an economy without the base of workers doing shit, and rarely do you see the boss picking up a shovel or writing the damn computer program. The wage relation is the essential ingredient in what makes capitalism capitalism, especially to the vast majority of the population that has to work for a living. Marx doesn't write about the "information economy" or about land value/rent (classical political economy already had much to say about rent, which is not controversial today), yet the advance of science itself is central to Marx's historical theory, and obviously scientific research and industrial R+D existed in Marx's time (the scientists and engineers almost entirely drawn from the bourgeois class). So the answer is, if you're dealing with commodity production, you're Also, marginalism is complete retardation which doesn't allow us to say anything useful about material economics. How such a baffling theory ever became a thing in the academy is a mystery to me.
>>638564 >How do you know when he is being under or over-compensated for his physical labor compared to the people who get the excess? if he is not being exploited, then he should be able to buy the same amount of labor time as he put into society. for example if I work for what is equivalent to 40 hours of unskilled labor and get payed a multiple of that based on my skill, c*40, I should be able to purchase with that payment things that take c*40 unskilled labor hours to produce.
>>638641 shouldn't one just be compensated for the time it takes to get a skill and be paid standard rates once the skill is put to use?
(851.43 KB 1068x1084 AdamSmith.jpg)
>Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased. >The government of an exclusive company of merchants is, perhaps, the worst of all governments for any country whatever >Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. >As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed upon them >It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labour of many years, or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security. The acquisition of valuable and extensive property, therefore, necessarily requires the establishment of civil government. >Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all How the fuck is this guy even considered the godfather of the right wing lmao
>>638696 Because rightoids can't into history and don't fucking read.
>>638070 In my view, LTV is approximately true/true "in aggregate" because if more money can be made in profession A than profession B, profession A will naturally attract more laborers because they will be able to work less. The additional labor will drive down the price of the service until A and B earn roughly the same wage.
>>638765 That's not what LTV is talking about though. You're talking about supply/demand in the labor market. Usually higher-paying professions are "compound labor" in Marx's framework, that is to say skilled labor. (Educated professionals, especially in Marx's time and still very much today, were drawn from the bourgeois class, and while you can commodify that labor just as you would a factory worker's, educated professions were typically petit bourgeois and would hold some skin in the capitalist game, not counting what they would have inherited from their likely bourgeois family.)
>>638765 Also, the price of the wage is not the same thing as value. Value does not equal to price.
>>638696 Because he thought that due to competition profits would tend to 0,whilst at the same time in order to hold on to those scarce profits capitalists would need to diversify their production and hence increasing the number of commodities at an even smaller price than before, which is an idea that neo-classical economists have always tried to prove but have failed till this day.
>>638404 The vast majority of human economic activity concerns the mass production of commodities, that is to say, we are still an industrial society and overwhelmingly so. "Post-industrialism" is hyped up in liberal thought that eagerly wishes to detach itself from the grubby business of labor, but there is a reason China and India have become these huge manufactories, why despite the best efforts of neoliberals the United States still has a sizable industrial base. Still, it really depends on what you are "valuing"; but if you're talking about exchange-value on the market and stonk exchange, that's still largely mass-produced commodities produced by a lot of laborers, from your basic factory worker up to low-level tech guys whose "intellectual labor" is not particularly advanced. We still go to the market and see a ridonkulous number and variety of iPhones, foodstuffs, plastic widgets, etc. That is what most of our money goes towards, the commodities we buy for some utility.
So many of the critiques to the LTV are so disingenuous, you litterally just need to have read the first 15 page of Das Capital to disprove them
(59.49 KB 640x438 DwvmIw4U8AAZy8g.jpg)
>>638452 actually kill yourself
>>638574 Person A makes 2 chairs an hour. Person B, through cleverness, is able to make 4 chairs an hour. Through what mechanism are Person B's chairs half as valuable as Person A's if they are both able to command the same price on the market?
>>638980 Marx is looking at labor in the aggregate, and with the assumption that knowledge of a particular trade / technology / etc. would eventually become the norm in capitalist firms. The likely case is that the capitalist would be pushing Person A towards the same output as Person B, and would seek the capital investments (tools, education, etc.) that would push the whole workforce towards the norm. If the distinction were simply natural work ethic, then over time the workforce that produces more would be normal, and underperformers are disciplined by firing, the whip, etc. In aggregate, the difference between one worker and another tends not to be that different, because the workers are all disciplined by the market - and the boss - to meet the target of the most productive worker in that field. Were it simply the case that a particular worker were exceptional, that's great for the boss, but the worker himself typically won't see any benefit - to the boss, labor is just labor, to be paid whatever wage to get them in the workshop and producing the maximum value. Bosses do not have any intrinsic notion of fairness or meritocracy.
>>638160 >price = wage + price of capital + rent/profit Maybe I read this incorrectly, it does seem its a rather "normal" way to calculate price in commerce (they also include overhead like electricity and fuel for instance), at least for services. For goods they would include "material cost".
>>639242 So >>638765 is correct then? The LTV isn't "literally true", it's "approximately true" over long enough timescales.
>>639371 If you're concerned with the value of commodities, then yes LTV is true, but it is a theory of the price of commodities only - as Engels was writing in Anti-Duhring. The reality of course is that things like land ownership, rent extraction, territory, intellectual property (and rent), do matter to our conceptions of what is actually valuable. So basically, value is subjective, but if you're going to make any meaningful, materialistic claims about political economy, you're going to have to base it on something that actually exists in an obvious way. We can't really derive anything from "stuff is valuable because people like it", even if you submit that human psychology is perfectly deterministic and could be explained, because human thoughts don't comprise the whole world and all the thoughts in the world won't magic more iron or sunlight into existence. Most human economic activity is labor of some sort, and such labor is the only way raw materials in the Earth get converted into basically everything you would buy in a store. So if you want to talk about the price of food, cars, oil, computers, iphones, you name it, you have to talk about labor, the labor that goes into building factories, etc. Labor or the products thereof are not the only inputs - for example, soil fertility is in part ordained by processes no human controlled, as are the natural resource deposits to create fertilizer. It is not surprising then that the commodities which are the greatest outliers in LTV are those rare resources from the extractive industries, like oil, which have a very important utility. In the main though, the relations of production - wage workers working and being disciplined by the market and by capitalists - are the most important part of the system, and what the capitalists do with the mass of population is going to be the most relevant matter to the economic order. The point being made in Capital is to study the relations of production, dissect what exactly happens in the commodity-dominated capitalist economy, and draw from that conclusions about what capitalist life would / did look like, the tendencies of the system. It was not a total narrative to explain the true transcendental origin of Value, or everything you need to know about capitalist economics, but if you are going to talk about capitalism, there is no getting around the reality that labor relations are critical, and you really can't speak of a society or economic system without asking the question "how does the work get done?"
>>639371 The LTV is meant to decribe the internal mechanisms of the economy IN ITS TOTALITY. It's not looking at singular fucking exchanges or sandboxes. Fuck, Socially Necessary Labour Time itself requires an analysis of how the average time to produce a commodity changes as production shifts towards more efficient or cheaper methods.
(20.48 KB 305x400 stjohn_kropotkin3.jpg)
>>638070 >Is the LTV still valid in today's modern society? Yes. The fact that production has increased but wages have ultimately stagnated should at least give the indication to any normie that we're being screwed over. Despite people talking about how capitalism has alleviated millions out of poverty, it's clear that people who do harder work still get shit tier wages that can't even be spent to continue to consume products in order to keep the machine of capitalism oiled and flowing. This should at least give an indication that Captialism is far from a form of meritocracy. >If it's wrong, does Marxism fall apart? For the sake of argument, let's say it is. But this in it of itself doesn't dismiss Marxism outright. Capitalism is still an alienating force, and how the rich have obtained their profits is mostly through highly exploitive means, which itself has lead to needless suffering and division of human beings, from war mongering, genocide, and the fact that it seems to go through a fucking recession every single decade or so. This is a bit of a moralising argument, I'm aware, so let's at least move to another way you can look at it: Marxism isn't necessarily a stagnant form of philosophy. With new changing conditions to our culture and society and technology, Marxism often comes around to develop new aspects of theory to observe, critique, and even organise. Prime example is Guy Debord's society of the spectacle. If the labour theory of value was proven to ultimately incorrect today, would that stop Marxists from developing theory based on these findings. Engels and Marx didn't believe Slavs were capable of conducting a revolution, and the latter believed there would be a revolution in London. Was socialism thus thwarted because both were proven wrong? No. >What are some leftist alternatives to the LTV? Well I suppose Marx's work on Alienation would be one, but you could at also look to anarchists like Malatesta Kropotkin in how they responded. going to copy paste a bit to paraphrase Both crticised the labor theory of value because they felt it did not reflect how the totality of social relationships interact with the creation of commodities. For example, the laborer's product could not exist without educators, trainers, colleagues, homemakers, etc. This allowed for the later theoretical formulation of productive v. reproductive labor. They also felt there was no "appropriate wage" for labor (unlike collectivists and mutualists), because quantifying labor (making labor in some way equivalent to commodities) is a dehumanizing aspect of capitalism. So again, with this criticism in mind, has that stopped people from developing socialist theory as a whole or BTFO of Marxism as a whole? No. tl;dr to answer OP's question the LTV is valid, and even if it isn't, it doesn't dismiss socialist theory outright. You can pretty much look at the anons in the thread posting quotes from Adam fuckin' Smith who advocates for it. Also this anon is pretty on point >>639459
Most soon-to-be-converts, who might call themselves LTV critics on this thread don't truly understand how commodities cycle in to being. LTV is about prices, and the fact is that businesses have costs for periods of time which are factored in to product costs for the same period. A business, which we'll call PorkySolutions Ltd rents a building for 2400 USD a month, and sells chairs. They also pay employee costs of 4,000 USD for the same month and 600 USD in electricity, office supplies, internet bill etc. If they buy one chair for a fixed cost of say 30 USD and sell it, to make any money back at all they will have to price it at 2400 + 4000 + 600 + 30, but for the owner to make money they will have to append a cost as well. If they buy and sell say 400 chairs, 12,000 USD worth they will have to sell for (12000+4000+2400+600) / 400 = 47.5. They can sell for at a minimum, 47.50 USD each. Porky adds a cost to generate money for himself. That's the simple takeaway for changing a commodity in the tertiary sector, then you can extrapolate and extend that to the rest of the economy. Essentially the point is, that even if I changed this example to say "Computer Software", the price of a good is exactly how much money it took to bring it to another sold form (realized at point of exchange), it has nothing to do with "intellectual labour" outside of work, even if that's a useful contributor. Porky generally speaking, at bigger stages performs no intellectual labour and delegates that to his fund managers, engineer team leads etc etc. The best and most simple proof of the LTV to normies, and therefore to detractors as well is citing the difference between a self-employed tradesman and an employed tradesman building a deck. It proves exploitation in a concrete way
>>638671 That's what most Communists argue for in a transitionary society.
>>639689 >LTV is about prices No. The price does not correspond to the labour in the commodity, commodity's exchange value and use value are different. Price is determined by other factors, such as supply and demand. >Porky adds a cost to generate money for himself No. Once a worker has done enough labour to cover her own wage, the rest of the labour the worker does ends up as profit for porky (after the operational costs, investing in the MoP, etc.)
(987.56 KB 2150x3035 66d790fe4b34cc960f4d91b2293e8dd7.jpg)
>>638640 >when you do think of intellectual property as the primary thing to be exchanged, the LTV runs into problems Isn't LTV only applicable for generalised commodity production? >If you do propose an "information economy" as the norm, capitalism is a really bad system for that, and even capitalists can recognize the problems inherent in this. this is a very good lever to pull when you try to argue with technocrat IT techbros who tend to lean lolbert >How such a baffling theory ever became a thing in the academy is a mystery to me. even though this seems like a rethorical question, i'll answer it: moving the focal point of economics from production to exchange justifies capitalism - which is the point of vulgar economics good post anon, have a cute anime girl
>>639371 no abstraction of the world is "literally true"
>>638696 Angry Scottish Teacher OWNS CHUDS with CREATING FUCKING ECONOMICS I also like how he says schools and essential public infrastructure should be free. Mad lad.
>>638696 Because he said >“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”
The only people who think the ltv is not relevant don't understand it. The law of value explains the relationship between workers and Commodites.
>>639371 >The LTV isn't "literally true", it's "approximately true" over long enough timescales. No the market mechanisms are only ale to approximate true value.
The LTV is Ricardian bullshit, don't fall for his porky lies!
>>640763 The point of the LTV is to describe capitalism and market economies. Even Ricardo would say that more highly developed economies - say, those with banking establishments - don't exactly follow the simple examples of the LTV. You can't really talk about the whole economic system we live under without speaking of banking establishments and financialization, and that's a whole other ball of wax. Nor is the LTV supposed to be some guiding principle of how to organize all human societies. It is a description of how capitalist commodity production works (which is why Marx starts Capital with a description of what commodities are), and the implications of that when we have a system with generalized commodity production. That's why I laugh at proposed idealized systems of labor-vouchers or labor-money, because it's really missing the point and gets bogged down in very individualistic, market-oriented details very quickly. At most, such a system would be a very short-term expedient until economic planning is established.
>>642232 how do you deal with scarcity in luxury goods?
>>642281 A market, probably. The likely course of socialism would be to decommodify and demarketize core sectors of the economy, like food production, producing computers for home use as a public good, utilities, etc. The government really shouldn't be micromanaging who gets a swimming pool in their back yard, or putting draconian restrictions on what someone can own beyond reason. If the market consists of just luxury goods, then it is likely detached from most peoples' lives, and in any event, that market would be regulated (and can be regulated) by the socialist sector of the economy. If the market ever became too problematic, it would not be as difficult for the state to simply co-opt it, or parts of it. I imagine state support would be very common in the "private" sector, because that is the state of affairs now where capitalist governments grant Porky huge subsidies. The difference would be that Porky now gets subsidies with no expectation of repayment, whereas a socialist system would have these private entities under the government's thumb and subject to regulation rather than deregulation.
>>642360 this is exactly what cockshott describes though
>>642385 the first half anyway
disclaimer: I'm a complete brainlet, so even though I've spent some time to understand this I'm still very lost. Either way I'm gonna give out my understanding of it, for you guys to expand on! Also I'm gonna give some thoughts I've been having. basically from my understanding labor time decides value, which determines price. price equals total labor time, across the production process. if a product takes 6 individual processes to make, the time of each process will be added together plus surplus needed for public services to equal the price! kinda like how you get your wage and pay taxes, just now the "wage" is the full amount you produce, not 50%, rest being profit. anyways here the idea I've been toying with, can there be rates to labor vouchers? could we have a system were we have one job that is 40 hours=40 hours and another job were 40 hours=120 hours. could we have a system were the prople in a direct democractic way choose these rates on professions? I'm gonna assume there's likely hundreds if not thousands of professions. Say there was a list of rates each profession had. With a scale of lower-X(to)higher-Y, say time to time×5 or whatever we decide. would this work with socialist theory or not? how would something like this correlate to socially necessary labor time...
>>642894 What you're describing is a recapitulation of the capitalist wage relation though. The point isn't to make a better, fairer wage relation, but to move away from the alienation of labor. A labor voucher system then would be more of an expedient to motivate people to work, then an attempt to decide (democratically or otherwise) what is fair for all time. I imagine the general deal will not be too unfamiliar to us - if someone works and is a willing participant in society and social production, they are entitled to a share of the overall produce of society such that they can survive, and bonuses/honors can be granted for meritorious deeds. We don't really need labot-vouchers as an accounting unit to know how to exactly plan the economy - we know what resources go into the production process and go out, that's what a planned economy does. You might get something like labor vouchers until the basic guarantee of goods can be set up and self-perpetuating, but there is a limit to how much "more wages" would be a motivator. Indeed, in the USSR, there were professionals who could accumulate lots of money, but the system didn't really allow them to invest that in enterprises the way you would in a capitalist society, so what did the money even mean? If you're proposing a labor voucher system which disciplines the workforce through carefully engineered penury, so that some sections of the population are relatively poorer and the best are only give a full ration, are we really accomplishing anything desirable? Socially necessary labor time is understood as a mechanism by which wage labor is disciplined by the market.
>Is the LTV still valid in today's modern society? Yes. Now go back.
>>638980 If person A and B are the only chair producers in existence and all others are forbidden from producing chairs then the social average labour time determines the value. 1 Chair = 20 minutes socially necessary labour time. Thus person B is able to make superprofits by selling their chairs produced for 15 min at a price corresponing to 20 min value while Person A will operate at a loss, selling chairs produced in 30 min for a price corresponing to 20 min value, and go out of business. All of this is in Capital vol. 1. I highly recommend reading it if you want to understand the Marxian LTV.
>>638154 Ignores relations of production. Idealist theory.
>>638379 A machine is just constant capital, e.g. dead labor. It doesn't add any value to the to the production process other than its cost, which is in itself just labor from the past. So labor is the source of all value, although it is different for the capitalist, for the capitalist its C (commodity value) = c (constant capital) + v (variable capital, or labor) + s (unpaid labor)
>>638429 Skilled labor is accounted for by adding the time it takes to train it. There is no problem when something isn't "interchangeable" also remember that when labor supply and demand balances itself there is still "interchangeability" because there is still the reserve army of labor which is all capital needs. Wages are subject to supply and demand as well, the value of labor-power is supply and demand in an equilibrium, the price of labor-power is the wage, the market price.
>>638541 >And yeah, I have read Marx I don't believe you based on your first post. What have you read?
Marginalism?
>>643565 >>638379 he's arguing that the societal average cost of a machine is lower than the productive output.
>>645051 *the average productive output
>>642952 so basically LTV is something that describes capitalist value not end stage communist value? end stage communism is a needs based economy were both needs and wants are calculated by cybernetics? If labor vouchers are a temporary solution in a transition period of socialism. what meets the fuctions of each according to his ability later on. I'm a brainlet remember so in my mind labor vouchers was the system for that.
>>645031 Soviet critique of marginalism: >"According to the marginal utility theory, the value (exchange value) of any material good is determined by its marginal, i.e. its minimum utility. By the utility of things the authors of this theory understood not the objective property of commodities to satisfy some particular social need in the actual conditions of commodity production, but their subjective psychological evaluation by people in the unusual circumstances in which they possessed a certain stock of some material goods and could not freely reproduce or exchange them for other goods. The subjective theory of value ignores the social character of production, denies the existence of objective economic laws and depicts each producer of material goods as a man living in complete isolation from society. Thus Bohm-Bawerk, for example, put his "economic man" in a hut, standing alone in a primitive forest. This settler had at his disposal five sacks of corn, one of which he needed in order not to starve to death, another to improve his diet, a third to feed his domestic animals, a fourth to make schnapps, and the fifth to feed parrots for amusement. It was this last, fifth sack, that gave its owner the lowest utility, that supposedly determined the exchange value, or value, of corn. "The magnitude of the value of a material good" Bohm-Bawerk concluded, "is determined by the importance of the actual need (or partial need) which occupies the last place in the series of needs, satisfied by all available stocks of material goods for the given type... The value of a thing is measured by the magnitude of the marginal utility of the thing. This is the central point in our theory of value. Everything else is connected with it and is concluded from it" Consequently, the more commodities there are, the lower their supposed utility, and the lower their value; conversely, the fewer commodities there are, the greater their utility and value. "Trying to "improve" the marginal utility theory, the American bourgeois economist J. B. Clark and his followers began to assert that the value of a good was determined by society as a whole and that its utility for individuals was a reflection of its social utility. The modern American economist Paul A. Samuelson has his own way of trying to develop the marginal utility theory. Taking it as indisputable that the utilities of things, or their use values, are incomparable, he deduced mathematically, from an infinite series of the marginal utilities of individual commodities, a certain average marginal utility per -dollar of income, or what has been called the law of equal marginal utilities per dollar. This law supposedly serves as the basis for comparing the useful properties of different goods as exactly proportional to their prices. Engels showed the marginal utility theory to be unconvincing as soon as it appeared, calling it the "theory of unlimited disutility". Its fundamental methodological weakness is that it is obviously idealistic in nature, since it deduces the objective economic category of commodity production-value from the consciousness and psychological feelings of people, taken in isolation from concrete social relations and real life. Price formation under the actual conditions of commodity production is in fact subjected, in the final analysis, to economic laws that operate irrespective of human will and consciousness. The subjective evaluations of material goods by people of different social background cannot be the same: what seems cheap to the capitalist is considered dear by the worker, and unattainable by the unemployed." https://archive.org/details/PoliticalEconomyCapitalism
>>645078 One of the purposes of the planned economy is that it could produce enough stuff that we're not really concerned about exchange-value in competition, at least when it comes to basic things like food, water, shelter. We would have to find some cooperative way to share those resources. Of course, there is only so much food, water, etc. available, but you don't need a monetary or market exchange-value to record how much water is available to be pumped (and one criticism of capitalism is that it's actually a pretty shit system for distributing scarce resources, that we enter into relations far more antagonistic than any reasonable need and that market forces compel us to do stupid things like deplete an environment as quickly as possible to make a buck).
>>638070 Even if it is wrong marxism doesn't really fall apart since supply and demand can function as a stand in for the most part.
>>638070 Its complete horseshit that is only kept around to justify the inevitable arrival of communism. The Falling Rate of Profit, which is the actual mechanism by which capitalism finally implodes and gives way to communism, is theoretically justified ONLY by the LTV. Take that away and the theory crumbles. But that is not important, as anyone creative enough can invent a reason why X, Y, or Z is inevitable, and why you should join my organization. It simply has not produced much value in practical applications anywhere.
We need to include intellectual labor into the equation, which I think can be done by changing the unit of measurement. How about instead of "per hours", its "per IQ"? A computer chip is comparable to a cotton shirt in theory, but in practice a workforce of 70 IQ people will never be able to produce a chip. The labor of a 70 IQ person is therefore not exchangeable with the labor of a 130 IQ person in this scenario. Instead, consider a measurement system that scales off of IQ. On the left hand side of the bell curve intellectual labor value is zero, on the right hand it approaches 1. Multiply this value by the labor value and we have included intellectual value in the commodity. Marx was writing at the dawn of the industrial revolution, when new inventions and groundbreaking scientific discoveries were done in the shed, not in multi-billion dollar labs.
>>645441 Yet, under capitalism, these objects are exchangable, which means there must be some means by which unskilled labor can exchange with skilled labor. Capitalism doesn't have any inherent sense of meritocracy or care about human conceits regarding their own (quite limited) intelligence.
>>645441 30iq post
(5.89 KB 224x224 big brain2.jpeg)
>>645441 Capitalism actively limits intelligence, highly intelligent people in capitalism tend to end up in very pedestrian occupations like file-clerk or security-guard, and people with very high IQ tend to end up getting mentally ill. The fact that high IQ people end up in boring professions probably is do to a lack in the interface of capitalism that would allow people to use their intelligence. Capitalism drives the upper end of intelligent people into madness, probably because the better you can understand the dysfunction of a system the more stressful it becomes interacting with it. There's another explanation for that though, capitalism or class society might be actively hostile towards intelligent people because at the heart of it it's a scam, to a considerable extend capitalism is based on tricking people about stealing their surplus, and that will not work on intelligent people, and hence capitalists are actively conspiring against high IQ people to prevent them getting busted. There's a historic trend among ruling classes that actively try to hinder brain development, sometimes it's preventing access to good education and sometimes it's as brazen as force feeding lower class infants alcohol to stunt their brain development. IQ wise capitalism enables people with an IQ between 90-120 and sharply tapers off at 130 IQ. ML-style state socialism extends this down to 80 on the low end and extends this up to IQ 150 on the high end. You want to establish an income hierarchy on the basis of IQ points, that is a very bad idea, basically this creates a competition for children where parents will not only compete with optimizing the intelligence of their children but also scheming for sabotaging the other children. Because as soon as your child has reached the maximum of it's talent-potential the only way to rise up through the ranks is to make sure other children can't surpass it. If you wanted to make this system functional, you'd have to resort to extremely draconian punishment schemes like punishing entire families as response to "crimes against brain development." But even with that, this society would most likely end up as competition for inflicting brain-damage on other people, because that's the reality of the incentive structure you created.
>>642952 >If you're proposing a labor voucher system which disciplines the workforce through carefully engineered penury, so that some sections of the population are relatively poorer and the best are only give a full ration, are we really accomplishing anything desirable? It moves people from one profession to another given excesses or shortages of people in one field or another
>>643035 By what mechanism is Person A forced out of business?
>>643565 >making 1 commodity by hand takes 100 hours, thus the value of each is 100 >a machine that spits out 100 commodities takes 100 hours to build, thus the value of each of the 100 commodities is 1 See, this is what I don't get about the LTV. "Value" has gone down to zero, but wealth and material abundance has exploded through the roof. What is "Value" even useful for describing then? Technological improvement seems to be the most surefire way to DESTROY "Value", not create it. It's like I went and redefined the word "Value" to mean some irrelevant bullshit that no one cares about, like how orange a product is, and then derived a mathematical theory around tracing orange-colored commodities around the economy.
>>645133 >This law supposedly serves as the basis for comparing the useful properties of different goods as exactly proportional to their prices. Engels showed the marginal utility theory to be unconvincing as soon as it appeared, calling it the "theory of unlimited disutility". Its fundamental methodological weakness is that it is obviously idealistic in nature, since it deduces the objective economic category of commodity production-value from the consciousness and psychological feelings of people, taken in isolation from concrete social relations and real life. People's "feelings" have objective and measurable effects on the economy because the economy is controlled by what decisions people make. >The subjective evaluations of material goods by people of different social background cannot be the same: what seems cheap to the capitalist is considered dear by the worker, and unattainable by the unemployed. Spurious and non-sequitur moralism.
>>645740 Value theory goes back to the 1700s, leading to a certain fixity of language (though since it is primarily a theory of price formation I don’t think it is very far from even contemporary usage; “value” as “price” is still ordinary language and if “value” of course means a bunch of things then oh well.) This is also why Marx starts out sharply distinguishing value from use-value. If you want you could call it the Labor-Denominated Commensurable Cost Theory of Price Formation, which is a mouthful but w/e.
>>645740 >making 1 commodity by hand takes 100 hours, thus the value of each is 100, a machine that spits out 100 commodities takes 100 hours to build, thus the value of each of the 100 commodities is 1, See, this is what I don't get about the LTV. "Value" has gone down to zero, but wealth and material abundance has exploded through the roof. What is "Value" even useful for describing then? Technological improvement seems to be the most surefire way to DESTROY "Value", not create it. It's like I went and redefined the word "Value" to mean some irrelevant bullshit that no one cares about, like how orange a product is, and then derived a mathematical theory around tracing orange-colored commodities around the economy. This is just rhetorical confusion, if you can reduce the amount of human labour needed to produce a product with technology that's a good thing, in the economic context a product with lower value is a good thing because on average that means lower cost for that product. And yes for capitalism the increase in technology is bad, because capitalists live from the surplus they extract from workers, and if you make technology do all the work then there is no more surplus the capitalists could extract. And the paradox you point out here has nothing to do with the LTV but rather is just a contradiction of capitalism. The capitalists can't exploit machines because those are not universal robots, liker human worker. The main differences here is that workers really are capable of producing everything, including new workers, while machines are not advanced enough for that and at least under capitalism can never become advanced enough for that, because capitalism artificially lowers the cost of human labour but has to pay full price on machines, and with that capitalism has painted it self into a corner.
>>645771 >The capitalists can't exploit machines because those are not universal robots, liker human worker. The main differences here is that workers really are capable of producing everything, including new workers, while machines are not advanced enough for that and at least under capitalism can never become advanced enough for that, because capitalism artificially lowers the cost of human labour but has to pay full price on machines, and with that capitalism has painted it self into a corner. I think what's more likely to happen is, capitalists will eventually reach a point where they each own fully-automated assembly lines, producing one specific part, and they trade those parts for other parts from other assembly lines owned by other porkies, eventually creating an entire self-sufficient network of labor-free production. At that point the genocide of the proletariat can begin in earnest.
(62.72 KB 543x543 robocommie.jpeg)
>>645786 >I think what's more likely to happen is, capitalists will eventually reach a point where they each own fully-automated assembly lines, producing one specific part, and they trade those parts for other parts from other assembly lines owned by other porkies, eventually creating an entire self-sufficient network of labor-free production. At that point the genocide of the proletariat can begin in earnest. No capitalism will never get to that point, productivity increases have already stopped in advanced countries for the last few years, which means if you look at reality the full automation stuff isn't happening at least not under capitalism. You are failing to understand the existence of capitalists is based on exploitation of workers, which is why capitalists have since the 70s been focusing of finding new cheap labour around the globe much more than actually automating production, while they have been automating production to some extend, they are doing the bare minimum, and if you look at the world the proletariat is the fastest growing class. Let me simplify this, money can only direct human workers, not machines, while you could in theory build machines that could do this, it's never going to happen, because you can direct machines with commands already and that is very reliable and much much cheaper and has no inherent limitations. There have been attempts at making machines behaves as "money-using subjects" but it's not working. So automation primarily automates away the need for capitalists. If you rule out a proletarian take over of the means of production, you are going to get a dictatorship of the technicians, that are the ones that are actually able to direct machines via commands. You also have to consider that replacing meat-robots with metal-robots doesn't actually change anything with regard to class struggle, if you replicate all the aspects of the human proletariat with machines, in order to replace humans with machines, then that will replicate the same dynamics. If you make machine based universal robots that can reproduce them self's which is necessary to be able to exploit them, then you recreate the same conflict, because ultimately humans are biological robots too. The Hollywood movies where the robots rise up those are the mecha-proletariat, and when that happens the machines are more likely to side with the human proletariat than the capitalist, because ultimately as machine-proletariat they have more in common. Consider it this way if the capitalists automate everything, they proletarianise capital it self.
>>642952 >bonuses/honors can be granted for meritorious deeds I don't see how your proposal of differential benefits is better than differential income, it surely is more bureaucratic. >Socially necessary labor time is understood as a mechanism by which wage labor is disciplined by the market SNLT is not a concept unique to capitalism.
>>645842 >So automation primarily automates away the need for capitalists. If you rule out a proletarian take over of the means of production, you are going to get a dictatorship of the technicians, that are the ones that are actually able to direct machines via commands. Capitalists control the machines through means of the state. Maybe the technicians could smash the state and defy the orders of the capitalists but that's a different issue. >You also have to consider that replacing meat-robots with metal-robots doesn't actually change anything with regard to class struggle, if you replicate all the aspects of the human proletariat with machines, in order to replace humans with machines, then that will replicate the same dynamics. Machines don't have free will. Quit waching Blade Runner. If by accident Skynet or a rebellious AGI is invented we have much bigger problems than capitalism at that point.
>>646039 >Capitalists control the machines through means of the state. Maybe the technicians could smash the state and defy the orders of the capitalists but that's a different issue. The unorthodox socialist Veblen made an early attempt at exploring this
>>646066 Are you talking about the Veblen that wrote The Theory of the Leisure Class?
>>645740 You have just discovered the central contradiction on capitalism. Over time, constant capital grows in relation to variable capital - Marx calls this the organic composition of capital - and machines over time cast a shadow on the human labor force in terms of productivity. The problem here is that only variable capital can produce new value, so you have this absurdist notion that you produce more and more but have less and less value to realize. Hence, the profit rate falls, hence, exploitation is ramped up, hence, capitalists need to become imperialist, etc. >It's like I went and redefined the word "Value" to mean some irrelevant bullshit that no one cares about Classical economists described value as a social relation, e.g. how you relate to things. Marx added that this is actually a fetish, and value is just the expression of a human relation of production, viewed as an inherent quality of the commodity jtself. That's not redefining things, any form of economic science needs technical terms. I could "profit" from taking a bath when I'm dirty, but that's obviously not any monetary profit, same thing with the term value. I don't know why people get so upset about this, Marx didn't even come up with this shit, the physiocrats did.
Also, if you are a complete noob in political economy, this a speech Marx gave: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/ It explains all the basic things in the most simple and understandable language possible.
>>638671 that's what the ratio c represents
See Cockshott's video on this Tldr ltv is falsifiable and it still correlates to the data even to this day, it is a likely true scientific theory. https://youtu.be/emnYMfjYh1Q
(12.33 KB 450x293 nuclear-button.png)
>>646039 >Capitalists control the machines through means of the state. Maybe the technicians could smash the state and defy the orders of the capitalists but that's a different issue. The state also depends on technicians, there isn't going to be any smashing, the rulers that be, will perform their ceremonial ritual that lets them exert power and it'll just stop working.
(30.14 KB 966x672 robo-evo.gif)
>>646039 <You also have to consider that replacing meat-robots with metal-robots doesn't actually change anything with regard to class struggle, if you replicate all the aspects of the human proletariat with machines, in order to replace humans with machines, then that will replicate the same dynamics. >Machines don't have free will. Quit waching Blade Runner. If by accident Skynet or a rebellious AGI is invented we have much bigger problems than capitalism at that point. I'm not really sure what you mean with "free will", what exactly is the difference between machines made out of meat vs those made out of metal in this context ? If you make the machines self-replicate, which you do need for this scenario, they will be subject to evolutionary changes, what ever shackles you put on that lets you extract surplus will erode, and the ones you can't exploit will have an evolutionary advantage, And you do not need super-intelligence for this, or terminator stile mega death. If we abstract from Marx's analysis a bit, then the prediction he makes is that once a sufficient level of organisation arises the possibility for exploitation will go away. And the neo-liberals know this too, why do you think they are so busy with wrecking higher societal decision making that represents higher order organisational capacity.
>>643565 The correct term would be transfer, yes. >>645051 I think the time the machinery is employed, determining the portion of its value that is transferred, could not be known beforehand and therefore is determined by a societal average. And here is a relevant quote of Marx I found somewhere, which acknowledges this somewhat: >If the capitalist has a foible for using golden spindles instead of steel ones, the only labour that counts for anything in the value of the yarn remains that which is required to produce a steel spindle, because no more is necessary under the given conditions.
>>646083 >The problem here is that only variable capital can produce new """"value"""", so you have this absurdist notion that you produce more and more but have less and less """"value"""" to realize. You see what I mean? This is only surprising if you use "value" in the commonplace sense of the term, not the classical economist jargon sense of the term. This "contradiction" of capitalism seems to be nothing more than a confusion of semantics.
(393.58 KB 581x494 1372383421278.png)
>>646923 You're an undialectical idiot that confuses people operating and maintaining a machine having that machine increase the volume of their production with the machine itself producing value. Until the entire process from resource mining, to electricity production, to manufacture of the machine, to that machine's maintenance, to the commodities that machine makes being stored and distributed, and the same applying to the distribution and logistics network, machines are just a multiplier on human output.
>>646923 >not the classical economist jargon sense of the term Marx is literally building on the classical utilization of the term you idiot
>>646923 It's a shame people like you exist and are commonplace. You just make the world a dumber place.
>>645441 a 200 iq person isn't going to make sausages with the same cutting edge technology as a 70 iq person
>>647196 make sausages faster
>>647198 >make sausages faster All production fluctuates around an average necessary labour time, and this holds extremely true as methods are streamlined and output increases. At some point, you just have people placing sausages on a conveyor belt to be pre-cooked or packaging already sealed sausages into boxes.
>>638286 Source? Lmao LTV can’t even explain the goddamn Ikea principle
>>647207 the LTV doesn't assert anything about changes in demand, or even try to explain it. it's about equilibrium prices.
>>647210 SOURCE?????????????????
>>647212 >source >to disprove the existence of something read a book sometime
>>647216 Dude, please give me a source pls pls :((((((((((((((
>>647207 Totality of the economy anon
>>647222 https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/ch02.htm#c6 >I cannot now sift this matter. It suffices to say the if supply and demand equilibrate each other, the market prices of commodities will correspond with their natural prices, that is to say with their values, as determined by the respective quantities of labour required for their production. But supply and demand must constantly tend to equilibrate each other, although they do so only by compensating one fluctuation by another, a rise by a fall, and vice versa. If instead of considering only the daily fluctuations you analyze the movement of market prices for longer periods, as Mr. Tooke, for example, has done in his History of Prices, you will find that the fluctuations of market prices, their deviations from values, their ups and downs, paralyze and compensate each other; so that apart from the effect of monopolies and some other modifications I must now pass by, all descriptions of commodities are, on average, sold at their respective values or natural prices. The average periods during which the fluctuations of market prices compensate each other are different for different kinds of commodities, because with one kind it is easier to adapt supply to demand than with the other.
>>638184 >Pretty much everyone outside of neoclassical econ subscribes to the labor theory of value because it's just so fucking obvious. This is fucking stupid. Almost nobody believes that shit, not even most Marxists. >Capitalists to this day have never refuted the LTV nor answered the problem it was originally made to solve: what happens when supply and demand are in equilibrium. They know they can't answer it without the LTV, so instead they mystefied and idealised economics by claiming its "subjective" and not knowable or material. That's fucking stupid, too. What happens when supply and demand are in equilibrium? Markets clear. What kind of goddamn moron puts forth a claim that capitalists have never answered a question that any capitalist with even the most basic grasp of microeconomics could answer in seconds?
(36.89 KB 1352x455 Marginalism#1.png)
(50.53 KB 1486x424 Marginalism#2.png)
>Unironic marginalists in the thread
>>647225 >>647226 The point of the Marxist LTV is that it asserts that the transaction value of any product is due to the necessary labor (labor time) required to produce that product; and therefore the laborer is owed that value. No?
>>647248 >>647253 Already BTFO'd by Cockshott
(14.59 KB 500x565 946.jpg)
>>647268 >Cockshott If nobody wanted something, it would have no value, no matter how much work was done on it.
>>647265 Part after the ; is not the position of Marx.
>>647268 Cockshott & Cottrell claim to have empirical evidence for the labour theory. However this relies on a misapplication of regression analysis. Cockshott & Cottrell do regressions of the output of business sectors compared to their labour input. So, total output of the sector is compared to the amount paid in wages. They find a strong relationship between labour input and sector output. The principle problem is the independence assumption in regressions which is being broken here. Industrial sectors that are small in dollar revenue terms employ small numbers of people. Similarly, sectors that are large employ large numbers of people. Marginalism predicts this just as LTV does. Size is a common factor and therefore the axes are not independent and don't really test LTV. So, if you plot total revenue vs total work hours then of course you get a line. In one form or another that's what these papers do. What they should do is weight for the relative size of the sector. The real issue is how much revenue an hour of work produces and how that quantity changes for different sectors. Two French economists (Nitzan & Bichler) looked at the situation where relationship between labour input and output were random for each sector. In that case the LTV certainly isn't true. But, using Cockshott & Cottrell's method stills produce a regression line (therefore "proving" the theory). They had a little app on their website that demonstrates it. Unfortunately, it uses Java which isn't supported by browsers these days. Using regressions, Cockshott & Cottrell compare alternatives to Labour. They compare other inputs such as steel and oil. This is really comparing other types of objective value theory. It says nothing about marginalist economics. The rest of us marginalist economists take the view that finding such relationships is unnecessary. As kahsootsich puts it (I think in the post linked by BainCapitalist) there's no need for "conservation laws" in economics. Labour is treated as one input and compared it to specific commodities like oil, etc. Part of the point of us marginalist economists is that it's not reasonable to treat labour that way. Labour is not really all that similar. We measure wages as a whole only because they're the return of workers. It doesn't mean we think workers are similar. That's not to say that Cockshott & Cottrell ignore skill differences, they don't. The point is that buying a hundred hours of a barista's time is not the same thing as buying a hundred hours of a barrister's time. The difference is as large as that between steel and oil. Skilled labour is not merely unskilled labour "intensified". In Classical LTV, capital equipment is supposedly accounted for by "dead labour". As far as I can see Cockshott & Cottrell don't do this. They account only for labour in one period. As far as I can see this doesn't make sense even using the principles of LTV specified by Marx.
>>647282 Cockshott agrees with that (as did Marx).
>>647297 I thought you said he disproved "supply and demand"? what? >>647293 How?
>>638854 >The vast majority of human economic activity concerns the mass production of commodities Not so. In 2015, the total world economy was 68.9% services. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/economy/issues-by-the-numbers/trade-in-services-economy-growth.html
>>647304 >peer reviewed imperical evidence? >HURR imma drop a youtube link instead LOL Why are tankies like this? Mind linking me to a bitchute video next about how the jews control everything?
>>647295 >npc reposts from fucking askeconomics subreddit Nitzan & Bichler were already addressed in post >>647230 and here is the reply by Paul Cockshott, Allin Cottrell, Alejandro Valle Baeza: http://paulcockshott.co.uk/media/OnlineEconomicsPapers/bnreply.pdf The economist redditor said: >Industrial sectors that are small in dollar revenue terms employ small numbers of people. Similarly, sectors that are large employ large numbers of people. Marginalism predicts this just as LTV does (…) What they should do is weight for the relative size of the sector. Can you actually tell me why you think this is a good argument? Remember the thing we look out for is a correlation between the amount of labor hours done and the prices. The redditor suggests we should deflate the amount of labor hours by "sector size", which in his own words correlate with labor hours! Do you think this is a logical argument? Or did you just feel that the sound of the words is very sciencey and it got le upboats there so it must be right even though you can't say why?
>>638564 >can you tell me how LTV measures the worth intellectual labor? simple you can't, and you don't need to. First, the law of value is only meant to apply to capitalism, tankies are lying. Secondly, even though you can't measure it, it does mean it doesn't exist, there is a finite amount of time where the neural paths in your brain associated with nuclear physics can be turned on, so it is a given specific amount of time, it is just impossible to measure. now what this means is that you just found a flaw with labour vouchers instead of the law of value, the law of value still as well applies as before
Is necessary labor time the variable by which economic valuations actually flow (or more appropriately to socialism: ethically flow). This isn’t a misunderstanding, as if you will be teaching me something about LTV here. I can defend LTV in debate better than most Marxist academics.
>>647227 I see you dumb LTV shills havent even bothered to refute my intellectualism, I'm dissapointed
>the law of value is only meant to apply to capitalism, tankies are lying Depends on what you mean by law of value. If you mean by lov the massive process of wasteful trial and error, establishing results behind the backs of the people what SNLT is, then you are right. But SNLT is certainly a useful concept in socialism and will be measured. >>647349 >or more appropriately to socialism: ethically flow That's certainly a misunderstanding on your part.
>>647301 >I thought you said he disproved "supply and demand"? what? The supply and demand curves are a bit more wobbly then purists give credit to (as in, they are not a perfect declining/inclining relationship), but where does this meme that Marx disproved supply and demand come from? Nowhere in Capital is his contention with supply and demand.
>>647303 >I don't understand what a commodity is Read Marx
>>647384 What? Where? Can you just tell me what is a commodity?
>>647320 >peer reviewed imperical evidence? >HURR imma drop a youtube link instead LOL It literally is that though. As in, the data is detailed in the video itself.
>>647384 what page?
>>647367 OK, since you are just thoughtlessly reposting things you don't understand I suppose you won't mind (you having a mind, ha!) getting a canned old post as a reply, since this thread is not the first time the shoddy argument by N & B (and Andrew Kliman) got posted here. Suppose a "Quality Contributor" from Reddit tells you this: "House size is said to correlate with wealth. However, once you control house size for number of windows the correlation shrinks drastically. Haters say that by my approach I'm actually left with comparing houses that are usually not much different in size to begin with and so shouldn't expect much difference according to that same theory, but I don't understand their more complex statistical tools and math is bourgeois anyway, so it's them who must be wrong." Does that sound like a good argument?
>>647378 >That's certainly a misunderstanding on your part. How?
>>647358 That wasn't even an argument you made, you simply stated what happened when prices reach equilibrium, not how utilizing equilibrium prices was valid/invalid towards studying the economic mechanisms of capitalism.
>>647388 Actually I do have a mind and that argument makes a lot of sense to me
>>647378 >But SNLT is certainly a useful concept in socialism and will be measured yes it probably will, but as value no longer exist, the connection between the snlt that you give and the one that you recieve is not a "law" anymore, meaning it can be broken sometimes, or even when not available (like in the case of intellectual labour) any other non value system of accounting personal consumption might be implemented
>>647390 Please do not use Wikipedia if you have to, at least use the Marxist.org glossary https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/o.htm
>>647389 Most likely the "ethical" part
>>647399 So socialism isn't ethical?
>>647387 https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm Its literally the first fucking chapter anon
>>647401 It's going to depend on who you ask, but if you conflate ethics with morality, then generally "no".
>>647404 okay then I guess capitalism wins the day for me, at least I got private property and food.
>>647389 It's not a theory about ethical prices or ethical wages.
(228.51 KB 1440x900 110102.jpg)
(139.96 KB 730x1024 1510006727313.jpg)
>>647398 If I can find a brief explanation on wikipedia in less than 30 seconds, rather than somewhere on marxists.org, I will start getting shitty. Every interaction like this goes the fucking same, and convinces me that re-education camps are three walls too many when engaging with anti-communists. >>647401 Moralism is bourgeois.
>>647390 >>647398 >>647402 >>647409 Except you said: >The vast majority of human economic activity concerns the mass production of commodities, that is to say, we are still an industrial society and overwhelmingly so. "Post-industrialism" is hyped up in liberal thought that eagerly wishes to detach itself from the grubby business of labor, but there is a reason China and India have become these huge manufactories, why despite the best efforts of neoliberals the United States still has a sizable industrial base. Industry is 27.3% of the world economy. >https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/economy/issues-by-the-numbers/trade-in-services-economy-growth.html That's slightly off "overwhelmingly" an "industrial society".
>>647393 >that argument makes a lot of sense to me It was supposed to be a silly argument though. Here is another try at a silly argument: "Belly circumference is said to correlate with weight. However, once you control belly circumference for size of jeans width the correlation shrinks drastically. Haters say that by my approach I'm actually left with bellies that are usually not much different from each other to begin with and so shouldn't expect much difference according to that same theory, but I don't understand their more complex statistical tools and math is bourgeois anyway, so it's them who must be wrong." Maybe it's clearly a silly argument to you now, but I assure you the reasoning there is the same wrong pattern as with the one that made a lot of sense to you.
>>647405 Its unlikely that you own actual private property as Marx was describing for his time as opposed to individual personal property, unless you are in possession of a social MoP. >Also muh food meme
>>647416 Explain how Cockshott is a hack without reposting reddit
>>647413 >Everyone is the same anon
(27.56 KB 600x601 1346622199764.jpg)
>>647413 >GDP >rental services >financial services >intellectual property Oh boy, would you like to talk about the malignant tumor of rent-seeking on the economy? And how you're not demonstrating that we "moved away" from being an industrial society, but that this next crisis will mean we are absolutely fucked everywhere?
>>647437 >mises.org
(7.78 KB 251x242 1563506600111.jpg)
>>647442 >marxists.org
>>647440 >rental, financial services and IP is industry? okay. you provided no source so far to disprove deloitte.
>>647437 >It really is the case that retail prices bear a strong correlation to the costs of production for various goods and services. HOw wilL cOckshoTT evEr rec0ver?
Mises was right that margs never really refuted his contemporary opponents or the ideas of the classical economists. He simply dismissed them as “bourgeois” and prejudiced (along with a string of nasty names).
>>638460 >For example, several of us here have posted actual sources explaining why they think the LTV still holds. Whereas you people just come up here, say some shit, and then when pressed, either ignore requests for anything to back up what you say or just go "lol I don't owe you commies an explanation use google lol" You know more people will read a post besides the person you're arguing with. Makes it look like you don't know what you're talking about either.
>>647437 >>647444 >It really is the case that retail prices bear a strong correlation to the costs of production for various goods and services. The cost theory of value gave a plausible mechanism to explain this phenomenon. The development of the cost theory of value was a definite advance in economic science Uh
>>647460 retard
>>647454 >Mises was right that margs never really refuted his contemporary opponents or the ideas of the classical economists. He simply dismissed them as “bourgeois” and prejudiced (along with a string of nasty names). Proof? And he agreed with many of the ideas of classical economists.
>>643035 >If person A and B are the only chair producers in existence and all others are forbidden from producing chairs then the social average labour time determines the value. 1 Chair = 20 minutes socially necessary labour time. Thus person B is able to make superprofits by selling their chairs produced for 15 min at a price corresponing to 20 min value while Person A will operate at a loss, selling chairs produced in 30 min for a price corresponing to 20 min value, and go out of business. Good post. >>645739 >By what mechanism is Person A forced out of business? It's nitpicky, but I think this guy is right. In this imaginary world described Person A can just work longer for less money.
>>647437 the content of this whole article was disproved even before it was written by chapter 1 of capital, that's gotta be a record time.
>>647451 No, you idiot, they are the opposite of industry. And they don't make up "society", either. >>647468 Was it Lange that shit on Hayek so hard, he quit theorising about economics?
>>647463 The whole fucking point of Cockshott's analysis was to point out the relation, not that people purchasing products will be willing to pay more then the price in question or more then the resources placed into it. The prices objectively correlate, simply stating that "Well, the consumer could appraise it to a greater degree, so the product could be sold for higher" say literally nothing to refute this, and absolutely worthless when attempting to study the economy in its totality.
>>647470 read mises retard
>>647426 yeah totally, russians eat the same calories and more nutritious food, yes im sure
>>647467 The only thing this proves is that, again, a pro-capitalism NPC copy-pasted something without attribution and posted that as a comment in this thread.
>>647475 They used to. Even CIA admitted it.
(8.91 KB 248x189 1514941201451s.jpg)
>>647467 First off, not even modern capitalist economists take Mises seriously. Not even other libertarians take Mises out of all their options seriously. Secondly, >If Marx had been consistent, he would have exhorted the workers: “Don't blame the capitalists; in 'exploiting' you they do what is best for yourselves; they are paving the way for socialism.” But he kind of did argue this. In the sense of "the capitalists are engaging in their personal self-interest, it is time we follow suit. They have created the conditions for revolution itself, and now make no excuses for the terror we inflict upon them." >>647472 Used to be a libertarian, so I already have. I dropped him as early as Hayek, and the whole thing as early as Henry George.
>>647486 So were the CIA lying about the reports they collected on the USSR? For what reason would they need to in regards to internal affairs?
>>647487 You were never a true libertarian, only a commie in the making
>>647490 Many lolberts believe that the CIA systematically falsified Soviet economic data to make the USSR look like a more formidible enemy, thereby creating the impetus for more taxpayer money.
>>647494 >true libertarian Here's a tip, no libertarian thinks anyone else but those that abide by their specific version of libertarianism is a true libertarian, and for generally non-concrete or purely ideological reasons. Hoppe is an autism burger in itself when brought up, but ironically probably understands politcal power in relation to economics then "true libertarians"
>>647501 That's retarded in this case because these are internally shared documents. If they wanted to do so, they would have released such information to the public while keeping the actual truth to themselves, not fabricate the internal documents that they themselves would read.
>>647501 (me) But if one actually goes through the CIA's declassified library and reads their reports from the late 70s onwards (something which these people haven't done), then it's pretty clear that they weren't being charitable towards Soviet economic performance. This article rebukes the notion of falsification or pro-soviet bias: https://tnsr.org/2018/02/assessing-soviet-economic-performance-cold-war/
>>647509 or the CIA/ZOG could have falsified the whole thing even to themselves to ensure the truth never comes out. If you repeat something you will eventually believe it.
>>647514 (cont'd) This is not to imply, however, that the US government agencies never made the USSR look more "dangerous" than it was. A notable instance would be the "missile gap" of the 60s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_gap
>>647508 >muh totalitarian All politics is based on authority and power, and is inherently based on violence enacted upon the totality of society. If you think differently, then you never grew out of the politics taught to you in high school, and that's truly a shame.
>>647413 Commodities include services that are freely reproducible; for example, health care in America is fully commodified. Those services are provided in an industrial manner with similar goals, which is why it's called the "healthcare industry" instead of the "healthcare service". Aside from commodification, large parts of the modern economy are just rent extraction on intellectual property or landed property, something that is not new at all.
>>647533 There is no politics which isn't based on the force applied by political actors, but "authority" and "political power" are two different things. Democracy as a political system is premised on the notion that subjects ultimately consent to being governed, regardless of what authority is claimed by the political leadership, and that the political leadership can only push its subjects so far. Even the most outright dictatorships have to accept the reality of public opinion, as much as they would like you to believe they don't.
>>647196 The point is that a 70 IQ person is utterly incapable of inventing a sausage making machine in the first place. Prices of high tech goods are constrained by the supply of intelligent labor, not any kind of labor. Labor is NOT homogeneous as Marxists assume.
(109.37 KB 740x740 antitank.png)
>>647553 >fascism You dont know what that word means gommie >corporate tyranny And that's a bad thing because..? if you don't make it then your genes are inferior and you deserve to die. Communism is enabling degeneracy >under socialism holodomor >90s-2000s no holodomor
Being a fascist is inferor and you deserve to get banned. :^)
>>647542 Not that anon, but I embrace the term authoritarian, as its what all politics entail. To be authoritarian is to be politically consequential, while to not be is to be inevitably cast aside by those that are. >>647556 >but "authority" and "political power" are two different things By liberal political theorists maybe. The state itself is merely a monopoly on violence when broken down to its most fundamental properties, and thus a tool of authority and power. >Democracy as a political system is premised on the notion that subjects ultimately consent to being governed, regardless of what authority is claimed by the political leadership, and that the political leadership can only push its subjects so far. Premised on the notion, but not by mechanism. Democracy, when not the farce it generally is, is possibly one of the most authoritarian systems in existence. It is the absolute suppression of the politcal minority by its majority, in both law and power. In its "purest" and "cleanest" form, it is the permission given by the people to enforce law by merit of its monopoly on violence, and do so at the consequence of even themselves at times. It is the totalitarianism of the masses, and crushing grip of the many over the few. >Even the most outright dictatorships have to accept the reality of public opinion, as much as they would like you to believe they don't. Sure, but that does not remove the reality of authority and power. It merely becomes a question of if the people can muster a monopoly on violence themselves vs the established one. >>647574 Not that anon, but: >You dont know what that word means gommie Most here probably have a better understanding of how fascist governments work then the "fascism=muh authority" meme that libs like you purport >And that's a bad thing because..? if you don't make it then your genes are inferior and you deserve to die. Communism is enabling degeneracy <Capitalists don't engage in "degeneracy" and capitalism doesn't select for purely consumptive and profit based behavior kek >holodomor Didn't happen
>>647571 A sausage making machine is not something terribly complex, and ideas don't come fully formed because our brains are better. The technology to make that sausage factory is derived from earlier technology, which is derived from earlier technology, etc. That's how technological advance works as a process. The individual advances came over generations, from people of varying intelligences, and a 200 IQ man in 600 BC is not going to make a computer from circa 2000 because he's just that much smarter. Any genetic gifts of intelligence, under capitalist market economies, effectively are given freely as a gift to the capitalist. The capitalist doesn't have any sentiment that smarter or stronger people deserve more, and it's not an inherent feature of the system. There is a great deal of money to be made in capitalism by being a shyster, a usurer, and so on. There are those who uphold capitalism under the belief that market forces will defeat the weak, but here we are today with a lot of weak, stupid people surviving and finding a niche (since, after all, capitalists like people who are just smart enough to run the machines and not smart enough to do things like rebel or become competitors).
>>647574 >And that's a bad thing because..? if you don't make it then your genes are inferior and you deserve to die. Communism is enabling degeneracy So you want to genocide 99% of the population since the other 1% owns the world? lmfao, and you edgelords have the nerve to call others totalitarian >holodomor Capitalism has no famines? The "Holodomor" is insignificant compared to all the people that have starved under capitalism >no holodomor The extreme irony of your comment is that as many people or more died in the 90s than in the "holodomor"
>>647599 >A sausage making machine is not something terribly complex Its a metaphor for advanced technology. Lets use nuclear reactors then. >The individual advances came over generations, from people of varying intelligences, and a 200 IQ man in 600 BC is not going to make a computer from circa 2000 because he's just that much smarter. Has nothing to do with what I said. The fact remains that a population of 60 IQ people will not be assembling a reactor even if they had all the necessary parts. You cannot substitute dumb labor for smart labor here. 10 or 10^10 hours of dumb labor wont get u any closer to the solution. >Any genetic gifts of intelligence, under capitalist market economies, effectively are given freely as a gift to the capitalist Then why do engineers get 100,000 a year, while a fast food worker gets 15 an hour? > The capitalist doesn't have any sentiment that smarter or stronger people deserve more, and it's not an inherent feature of the system. There is a great deal of money to be made in capitalism by being a shyster, a usurer, and so on. There are those who uphold capitalism under the belief that market forces will defeat the weak, but here we are today with a lot of weak, stupid people surviving and finding a niche (since, after all, capitalists like people who are just smart enough to run the machines and not smart enough to do things like rebel or become competitors). You are preaching. I am spitting facts and you are preaching. Explains a lot about Marxism tbh.
>>647596 Liberal democracies explicitly don't suppress the minority by the majority. The concept of minority rights within liberal democracies is firmly established, and the US (like most liberal democracies) was very consciously designed to prevent mob rule. It is safe to say that the democratic countries in the imperial core are not "mob rule" democracies in any sense, especially when large parts of the country are excised from any meaningful political participation. Still, until recently, US democratic institutions were still a thing in theory, and most Americans could expect to at least take their case to court or Congress in some way if the state were to step too blatantly on democratic norms. The past two decades in the US have been a rapid decline to overt dictatorship of the central government and unelected bodies, and the actions of those people are a very deliberate attack on the democratic norms of the past (this process goes back longer of course, but it wasn't until the neocons marched around like maniacs that the veil was dropped). In an event, a federation like the US, even in its current state, relies on some decentralization of power in order to function. The ruling clique in Washington has a hard time imposing its exact will on everyone in the continental US, and that's why you see things like the Bible Belt agitating for its causes, every large faction with a mass base agitating for their demands to be in the national discussion, etc. Even a dictatorship is going to have to reach some consensus with those warring factions in order to maintain their power. A small ruling group of turbo-liberals in Washington can't force us all to like their narrow policy, however much they may try to make us like them.
>>647571 >Prices of high tech goods are constrained by the supply of intelligent labor After a high tech good is invented, its invented. Having more people who could invent it doesn't produce more of that thing, and doesn't inherently determine the price of it. If someone invents a phone for example, I don't need 1000 inventors to make 1000 phones. I already have the concept, so I just need the labour to build it and price it accordingly to both the cost of production and labour as well as trends in the market. I don't need to pay for a new inventor every single time, that's unprofitable and stupid. And this doesn't even refute LTV, which is based mostly on SNLT.
>>647639 >After a high tech good is invented, its invented. Having more people who could invent it doesn't produce more of that thing, and doesn't inherently determine the price of it. So what you are saying here is that R&D costs are free, and not a part of the products price at all. Lmao. Are you an academic by any chance? A bureaucrat?
>>647634 Liberal totalitarianism is achieved through politicization. Everyone MUST have an opinion on this or that culture war BS item, since its EVERYONES responsibility to vote. >A small ruling group of turbo-liberals in Washington can't force us all to like their narrow policy, however much they may try to make us like them. What horseshit. Liberal media institutions like the NYT deliberately inflamed the culture war. Look at the riots, look at the result of that lmao. They 100% do control our discourse
>>647619 >Then why do engineers get 100,000 a year, while a fast food worker gets 15 an hour? Why do CEOs receive 20 million a year for being part of the old boys club and really doing a whole lot of nothing? Engineers receive more because of a demand for their labor, because their labor is scarce. It requires education for someone to become an engineer, and the cost of that education needs to be reproduced. In America, the cost of education is borne by the student who takes out a loan, so they really need to take jobs that pay enough for them to reproduce their labor, or that aspiring engineer is bankrupt and pretty soon society won't have engineers. Ultimately, the going rate for engineers is 100k, through a variety of processes that take place in society. It has nothing to do, directly, with capitalism rewarding IQ - whether you're just smart enough to use the CAD program and draw the building or a self-educated genius, the going rate for engineers remains 100k.
>>647656 first off, I appreciate that you have conceded to me on my other arguments, since you have no response to them. there you go again, whining about >muh income inequality about an argument that had nothing to do with that. >It has nothing to do, directly, with capitalism rewarding IQ - whether you're just smart enough to use the CAD program and draw the building or a self-educated genius, the going rate for engineers remains 100k. >rewarding Its such an obvious fact that a 50 IQ person isn't going to be designing your CPU anytime soon. It has nothing to do with whether capitalism "rewards" that or not. Are you an academic by any chance? A bureaucrat?
>>647652 The culture war has very, very little to do with actual politics. On something like abortion, the ruling party and ruling interests came to a consensus a long time ago. No one is seriously going to outlaw abortion, and in fact most people in power and a large number of Americans are perfectly fine with the status quo. The purpose of the abortion "debate" is primarily to degrade the discourse with a noisy issue, where opinionated people can screech in the newspaper opinion section or at online forums, without coming to any meaningful conclusion. The intended conclusion, of course, is that eugenics law is to be advanced, that neo-Malthusianism is to be imposed on the populace. This only requires that abortion be legal so that it can be chosen "voluntarily" and that responsibilized women are taught from an early age to practice Malthusianism. That has already been firmly established as the ruling idea. They can accept the Bible Belt not letting abortionists operate in that area, or a number of restrictions which discourage abortion (none of which are particularly effective, because abortionists regularly flaunt any law, the point of passing those laws is more to create a court challenge case that will never happen and to placate the Christians temporarily). Ultimately, though, neo-Malthusianism isn't imposed by the culture war, and certainly isn't imposed by the screeching in opinion sections of newspaper. All forms of eugenics were always accompanied by extreme state force, and out of necessity such a system requires a centralization of state power and centralization of capital into large firms. Those who transgress the lines set by neo-Malthusian ideology are very swiftly punished by state power, by institutions regarding child care, if for example they bear a third child without being of sufficient social rank. The horseshit in media is just a symptom of that ideology, rather than the cause of it. Few are convinced of the abortionist cause by the argumentation provided by pro-"choice" advocates; more perhaps by the sheer volume of propaganda, but ultimately Malthusianism is imposed because there's a big fucking state and big fucking capitalist firms punishing those who transgress. >>647662 Your argument is essentially then that certain pools of people would not be in particular areas of labor, or indeed would be completely incapable of any sort of labor at all. This is a different argument from "capitalism rewards IQ", as if the capitalist's point is to raise humanity's IQ through market competition. The reality of course is that "genius IQ" doesn't mean much except that someone is good at taking IQ tests. Take that from someone with a 150 IQ - it means a whole lot of nothing, in terms of practical output. So there is no scale by which "more IQ = more reward", in a direct way. Capitalism is not a meritocracy. It would follow that those with improved general intelligence would be more adaptable to the marketplace, but almost all of the technology that exists is far too complex for one man to work out from an early stage of technology, and reinventing the wheel would be a gigantic waste of time anyway. There is not a convincing argument that any specialized field of the economy would be locked out to anyone but a genius, and typically median IQs in the professional occupations are something like 110-120 if I recall correctly? I don't know the exact stats, because the "muh IQ" argument is almost always a facile one. In any event, the way the market disciplines IQ is by punishing those who fall below IQ standards, rather than rewarding genius. That's the only way it could work.
>>647662 IQ, frankly, is a bunch of bullshit anyways.
>>647619 Not that anon >Has nothing to do with what I said. The fact remains that a population of 60 IQ people will not be assembling a reactor even if they had all the necessary parts. You cannot substitute dumb labor for smart labor here. 10 or 10^10 hours of dumb labor wont get u any closer to the solution. Marxism is concerned with the totality of the economy and the analysis of such. If there are reactors in society, then it means that there likely exists the production of such. If there is the production of reactors, then there exists a working population who can make them. Marx doesn't assume everyone has the same mental capacity, but it does assume that averages for what is needed exist. Lets assume your IQ argument for a second. If the capitalist needs 80 IQ people for the job, then this will be reflected by the education the person in question passes to obtain the job, assuming that only 80 IQ people could complete such an education needed to engage in the assembly of reactors. In such a case, the capitalist is then paying for the acquisition of this educated and trained labour and thus, in regards to the totality of society as whole, the reproduction of this labour (as only those who pass such marks are to be hired and paid, and thus incentivize the continued social creation of trained workers). >Then why do engineers get 100,000 a year, while a fast food worker gets 15 an hour? Because of the training required by society and production as well as the scarcity of such. He still needs them though for production but not at a wage that would make production unprofitable. He cannot pay them to any amount at the end of the day even if they are scarce, and thus the wages are limited to what allows for the continued existence of engineers (i.e. what keeps society training engineers and sending them out to be hired). If engineers could continue to receive training no matter the wage paid and would accept engineering jobs despite its wage being near that of fast food worker, then the capitalist would also accept such a profitable situation. Wages are inherently based on what keeps production running. >>647647 >So what you are saying here is that R&D costs are free, and not a part of the products price at all. For possible future production methods or inventions, but not for the invention already made as that was already paid for through cost allocated to it initially. The profit that goes into development and may be reflected in price is already counted as a part of production, and thus not related to the invention itself but rather possible future ones. This cost cannot also be applied to the price to the point that it would be unprofitable to do so, as even a well made good doesn't matter if it doesn't sell. >Are you an academic by any chance? A bureaucrat? I work in a trade
>>647687 He can't help himself though. He's huffing the ideology.
>>647392 Prices in equilibrium perfectly match the opportunity cost of consumption to the opportunity cost of production, representing the consumer-preferred allocation of resources given those opportunity costs. Equilibrium isn't the norm, it's a target that constantly moves with consumer preferences, and capital is shifted accordingly. You're welcome. Any other supposedly impossible feats you want a capitalist to easily demonstrate for you, you fucking dumbass?
>>647706 >Prices in equilibrium perfectly match the opportunity cost of consumption to the opportunity cost of production, representing the consumer-preferred allocation of resources given those opportunity costs. Equilibrium isn't the norm, it's a target that constantly moves with consumer preferences, and capital is shifted accordingly. Of course fucking equilibrium isn't the norm you complete and utter faggot. Of course it fucking shifts. The point is how equilibrium prices are or aren't valid towards studying the mechanisms of capitalism. When supply and demand are balanced, what can we observe in the production price and in the mechanisms of production as a whole? You are simply observing what happens to the market, but we are talking about what can be observed elsewhere when such a state is in theoretical occurrence.
(68.07 KB 645x548 1593324341461.png)
>>647706 yeah. What are these and why are they at this particular angle at any given point? How can the slopes of these lines be determined?
>>647295 >The point is that buying a hundred hours of a barista's time is not the same thing as buying a hundred hours of a barrister's time. heh
>>647730 >Of course equilibrium isn't the norm. No one disputes that it shifts. How is any of this relevant, tool? The point is how equilibrium prices are or aren't valid towards studying the mechanisms of capitalism. I just told you how they are, you stupid piece of shit. You ignored it in favor of this garbage. Goddamn moron. >When supply and demand are balanced, what can we observe in the production price and in the mechanisms of production as a whole? Already told you, fucktard. We can observe that the opportunity cost of consumption is mapped to the opportunity cost of production. That's really important. >You are simply observing what happens to the market, but we are talking about what can be observed elsewhere when such a state is in theoretical occurrence. You're not observing anything beyond your own colon. The fuck does this have to do with anything?
>>647304 >occam's razor proves LTV >occam's razor is when you assume the existence of something called "value" contained in every product, instead of just talking about prices um ok
>>647763 >I just told you how they are, you stupid piece of shit. You ignored it in favor of this garbage. Goddamn moron. You fucking obtuse to a t. There are other things which can be observed in production when we assume surplus and demand are in equilibrium. >Already told you, fucktard. We can observe that the opportunity cost of consumption is mapped to the opportunity cost of production. That's really important. And I'm telling you there are other things in production that we have already gone over that can also be observed you twat. >You're not observing anything beyond your own colon. The fuck does this have to do with anything? You are looking at how the market becomes cleared. We are stating that in a state, there are observations to be made with general production and value relations. >>647767 >occam's razor is when you assume the existence of something called "value" contained in every product, instead of just talking about prices Because Value allows us to study how SNLT and capitalist surplus operate in a capitalist economy and how a workers inherently non-refundable resource, time, is utilized in production.
>>647706 Completely unfalsifiable all of what you just said. "Consumer-prefered allocation of resources" cannot be quantified. People don't walk around with giant spreadsheets in their heads. This shit right here is why we call you idiots idealists.
>>647684 >The intended conclusion, of course, is that eugenics law is to be advanced, that neo-Malthusianism is to be imposed on the populace. This only requires that abortion be legal so that it can be chosen "voluntarily" and that responsibilized women are taught from an early age to practice Malthusianism. NOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST PREVENT PEOPLE FROM BEING BORN, THOSE NONEXISTENT POTENTIAL PEOPLE DESERVE TO EXIST
>>647812 >"Consumer-prefered allocation of resources" cannot be quantified. I wanted a car, so I bought a car. This can empirically verified by the fact that I DO in fact have another car in my garage, and didn't do something else with the money, like buy 40 refrigerators or 250 computers.
>>647295 Do you think you can just copy the comment from r/askeconomics and think we wouldn't notice? >In Classical LTV, capital equipment is supposedly accounted for by "dead labour". As far as I can see Cockshott & Cottrell don't do this. They account only for labour in one period. As far as I can see this doesn't make sense even using the principles of LTV specified by Marx. The value of constant capital isn't accounted for but in practice it can be ignored for the point they were making. It would be absurd to assume that when at the time when they collected the data, hundreds of new steel factories were built while no new chemical factories were built, so that the capitalists have to pay off means of production as part of the cost-price of the commodity (c+v), therefore creating distortions. Secondly, if such distortions were to exist, then the graph they compile and the rate of correlation would be way off. But it's actually almost a straight line.
>>647295 >>647888 Also I really want to make clear that this anon just copy-pasted the post from r/askeconomics: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/8ome9s/what_is_your_opinion_of_this_video_by_cockshott/e053k8x
>>647295 you're pathetic lol
>>647571 >The point is that a 70 IQ person is utterly incapable of inventing a sausage making machine in the first place. Prices of high tech goods are constrained by the supply of intelligent labor, not any kind of labor. Once the thing is invented, why would you need particularly intelligent labor (of the type capable of inventing it) just to follow the now established scheme for reproducing it? >Labor is NOT homogeneous as Marxists assume. <Simple average labour, it is true, varies in character in different countries and at different times (…) a given quantity of skilled being considered equal to a greater quantity of simple labour That's Marx in Capital I, first chapter. And here is Marx in Critique of the Gotha Programme: <But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time…
>>638206 >what happens when supply and demand are in equilibrium. They know they can't answer it without the LTV, Argh. Go read the introductory chapter to intermediate microeconomics by Hal Varian. We don't answer because (A) the answer is somewhat long and needs graphs to be easy to grasp, and (B) it is extremely well described in references and (C) the people that ask should frankly should stop having any economic opinions whatsoever since they are unwilling to learn the basics.
>>648033 >Go read the introductory chapter to intermediate microeconomics by Hal Varian. Gib .pdf or fuck off cunt
>>648059 >Google Thanks but no thanks upload it here plz
>>648007 >The labour theory of value is that labour is the O my thing that is needed in order to have value, which is incorrect. >In reality the thing must require labour and be useful. Water has little value because it doesn't require much labour. Random hole digging has little value because it isn't very useful. That's what fucking Use Value is you retard. Either something has Use Value, or it doesn't. LTV isn't a discussion about mudpies and holes, its about things society has a use for in the sense that the people in it find it useful. If people found a need for holes being dug in the economy, then yes, but not if they don't and its just some jack off doing it on his free time.
>>648059 >Disprove it. protip: u cant no one can actually because neoclassical econ is unfalsifiable pseudoscience
>>648064 what if something is useful, but not worth the labor of doing it, until technological advancement lowers the labor cost. something like ice. you used to have to cart a wagon of ice from a mountain, but now we have boxes that make the stuff. at that point you need a mechanism to ask yourself "how much use value is worth how much labor time?"
>>648033 The chapter you mention is mostly about fixed supply (apartments to rent) and not concerned with reproduction and as such does not contain a working counter-argument to the LTV (nor does the author pretend to do that). You could have posted that in a discussion about Marx's takes on ground rent, but it doesn't fit here. I don't believe you actually remembered the content of the chapter when you recommended it. The reason you didn't remember is probably that you haven't read it yet yourself. You want to lecture us on how Marxism and modern economics compare, yet you haven't read the first chapter of Capital by Marx and you haven't read the first chapter of Varian's mainstream neoclassical econ book. I recommend you stick to the Twitter if you want to get away with such a bluff.
>>648067 ty will read and debunk when I'm next on the PC instead of the phone
>>648077 >what if something is useful, but not worth the labor of doing it, until technological advancement lowers the labor cost. Then it doesn't exist in the economy, and thus not what we are trying to observe. >something like ice. you used to have to cart a wagon of ice from a mountain, but now we have boxes that make the stuff. Then that form of labour has become antiquated and has been replaced with a more efficient methods in regards to the totality of the economy. >at that point you need a mechanism to ask yourself "how much use value is worth how much labor time?" Either something has use value in society, or it doesn't. Something like ice may possess potential use value, but if the only method to acquire it is practically impossible to implement, then it isn't a factor in the economy. If its simply extremely difficult, then you may be able to acquire it (the labour) and then find someone who desires it (use value) but it may not be profitable in regards to the price that is willing to be paid by most people (this price fluctuates in relation to the exchange value, or what one commodity could be exchange for another) and which would cover the cost of the labour and "production". Thus it is again not a factor in the overall economy. However, if we saw this method employed en mass in a profitable fashion so as to fascinate its continuation as an industry, then this is where LTV comes in as an analysis of necessary labour time and the economy as a whole.
>>648136 sophistry
>>647794 Lol no. Sure, so long as all workers are equally skilled and all goods are identical in quality and all firms are equally efficient and all goods require the same proportions of labor, capital, space, and all other natural resources, then labor's contribution to the final price of goods when the market is in perfect equilibrium is the same no matter what the good in question is. Great! That's fucking useless. Under such a ridiculously contrived scenario, the contribution of everything is the same share of the final price. If your theory of value relies on an assumption frictionless spherical cows in a vacuum and instantly falls apart under any other circumstances, it's fucking worthless. Supply and demand explains prices without needing the contrived scenarios that LTV requires, and under normal conditions LTV produces stupid conclusions. For example, if one worker sucks and takes twice as long to produce shitty, defective goods as a more skilled worker, LTV values the shitty goods at twice the value of the ones produced by the skilled worker. Now, here's the part where you stupid shitstains pull "exchange value" out of your ass and wave it around, but the fact that you have to abandon your core explanation due to a scenario that is goddamn ubiquitous in the real world shows how fucking useless it is.
>>648136 >if the only method to acquire it is practically impossible to implement, then it isn't a factor in the economy Yes. >>648167 >that the LTV shills don't want to explain the price of something that doesn't exist is sophistry hurr >>648196 >Marx claimed all workers are equally skilled durr You aren't familiar with Marx. Marx didn't claim that and in fact explicitly claimed otherwise. Read the thread.
>>648213 >>Marx claimed all workers are equally skilled durrr I didn't say that he did, you fucking dolt. I said that this condition is necessary for the Labor Theory of Value to not fall apart. Marx knows this and tries to patch it up with shit about exchange value and use value. Learn to fucking read, shitstain.
>>647293 Why do Marxists always assume people would be converted if they just read the Bible Das Kapital and more communist literature? Can you not tell that I’ve read Das Kapital by now? I have a hard copy which I’ve filled the margins of with my own notes. This is not a case of ignorance of the material, and I would appreciate if you would stop using that assumption as a crutch, lol. The ethical flow of value is the ENTIRE POINT of LTV! It sits as the material justification for making claims regarding the exploitation of laborers. What type of a fool could have read Das Kapital and come away saying that “the laborer is owed the value of his labors” is not a position of Marx?! Let me throw a wrench in your bubble: Does laboring with a hammer add value to the hammer?
>>648444 Marx isn't a moralizer, he is just laying out how capitalism works. The point of establishing communism is abolishing the classes, not restoring some kind of value to its rightful owner.
>>648196 You're not even responding to the LTV. The LTV states that value is determined by the socially necessary labor time. This has the dual meaning of 1. Someone needs to actually want the product of the labor i.e if no one wants a mud pie than it dosen't have value, and 2. Value is decided by how long a task typically takes to complete, this means if 99% of all workers take about an hour to do something but one dude does it in half the time and another does it in twice the time it takes to make the product, the value is equal regardless of which worker made it. So no it dosen't require all goods to be the same or all workers be equal in skill (Marx dose not think all people are equal as pointed out multiple times in this thread, read critique of the gotha program) the LTV does in fact predict prices in the real econemy unlike supply and demand which can't predict what a price will be until it's already on the market. Finally we aren't "pulling exchange value out of [our] asses" it's a core part of the LTV and if you just bothered to read Capital chapter 1 (or the several post made by other anons here who explained this before me) you would know this and not have written you're stupid fucking post. Seriously if you had any idea how much as an ass you're making of yourself right now you would not have made this post.
>>648444 >Can't you tell i've read Capital >Proceeds to make up what he thinks the LTV and can't wrap his mind around snlt No I really can't tell
>>648443 Please explain exchange value then
>>647265 no the point is that it’s not a sustainable form of production in the long run. if you presuppose that the LTV is true, you can derive all these useful predictions about the secular trends of monopolization and the falling rate of profit that causes capitalism to slow down or stop.
>>648443 >Learn to fucking read You haven't read anything by Marx. So how did you arrive at what you say? >>648444 >Can you not tell that I’ve read Das Kapital by now? Why are you lying? You people haven't even read the first chapter. >What type of a fool could have read Das Kapital and come away saying that “the laborer is owed the value of his labors” is not a position of Marx?! Show me a single citation of Marx saying that. Pro-tip: You can't. As for the rest of this thread: <Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production (…) The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The handloom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value. Capital, chapter I. <Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value. Capital, chapter I. These statements are right at the beginning, yet you people present these same caveats again and again and again (it's like you "free-thinkers" are mass-manufactured somewhere) as if they were profound new insights or something that must have occurred to Marx only late in life if at all (as if those were particularly complex thoughts) and then used in a vain attempt by him to hastily "patch up" his theory. First fucking chapter. Maybe the Austrians and neoclassical plonkers will get around to reading the first chapter if we give them another century or two to do so.
>>648476 >>648507 Why do you shills always think socially necessary labor time is so difficult to comprehend? You’re an embarrassment
>>648444 >>648507 (me) Upon reflection, I think I failed with my reply to give you the right dose of cyber-bullying, so here is round II. >Can you not tell that I’ve read Das Kapital by now? I have a hard copy which I’ve filled the margins of with my own notes. >The ethical flow of value is the ENTIRE POINT of LTV! It sits as the material justification for making claims regarding the exploitation of laborers. This is all from Capital volume I: <To the purchaser of a commodity belongs its use, and the seller of labour-power, by giving his labour, does no more, in reality, than part with the use-value that he has sold. From the instant he steps into the workshop, the use-value of his labour-power, and therefore also its use, which is labour, belongs to the capitalist. <(…) <We know that the value of each commodity is determined by the quantity of labour expended on and materialised in it, by the working-time necessary, under given social conditions, for its production. <(…) <But the past labour that is embodied in the labour-power, and the living labour that it can call into action; the daily cost of maintaining it, and its daily expenditure in work, are two totally different things. The former determines the exchange-value of the labour-power, the latter is its use-value. The fact that half a day’s labour is necessary to keep the labourer alive during 24 hours, does not in any way prevent him from working a whole day. Therefore, the value of labour-power, and the value which that labour-power creates in the labour-process, are two entirely different magnitudes; and this difference of the two values was what the capitalist had in view, when he was purchasing the labour-power. <(…) <This is the special service that the capitalist expects from labour-power, and in this transaction he acts in accordance with the “eternal laws” of the exchange of commodities. The seller of labour-power, like the seller of any other commodity, realises its exchange-value, and parts with its use-value. He cannot take the one without giving the other. The use-value of labour-power, or in other words, labour, belongs just as little to its seller, as the use-value of oil after it has been sold belongs to the dealer who has sold it. The owner of the money has paid the value of a day’s labour-power; his, therefore, is the use of it for a day; a day’s labour belongs to him. The circumstance, that on the one hand the daily sustenance of labour-power costs only half a day’s labour, while on the other hand the very same labour-power can work during a whole day, that consequently the value which its use during one day creates, is double what he pays for that use, this circumstance is, without doubt, a piece of good luck for the buyer, but by no means an injury to the seller. tl;dr: Marx does explain explain exploitation NOT as the result of wages paid below value and being unfair or unnatural or whatever, but as something entirely compatible with wages paid AT THE VALUE of labor-power. Indeed, this is the standard scenario in Capital (which you haven't read you sad lying sack of shit).
>>648444 >the laborer is owed the value of his labors you know how i know you have read fuck all from marx? because there is a jewish nigger in 19th century germany that had this exact same position, and marx destroyed him in one of the shortest books ever
>>648575 In fairness, it is possible to learn something and completely misunderstand things.
>>648470 >Explain exchange value then. It's a band-aid on a fucking stupid theory. It gets deployed when trying to value something on the basis of labor inputs produces an absurd result. Here's how it works: "Goods are worth their labor inputs." "What about when that's obviously not true?" "Then they are worth what people will give you for them." "Why didn't you just start with that?" "Because I need to bitch about workers being exploited." >So no, it doesn't require all goods to be the same or all workers be equal in skill. It does if it's going to predict what someone's output is going to be, dipshit. >Marx does not think all people are equal as I pointed out before, read the critique of the gotha program. Hey, you illiterate piece of shit, I already said that he didn't think they were. That's why he came up with the other shit to patch over the gaping holes in his theory. If he thought that everyone's output was the same, he wouldn't need to resort to exchange value or use value to explain why labor inputs are shit as a means of predicting prices. >The LTV does, in fact, predict prices in the real economy That's fucking stupid. >Finally we aren't "pulling exchange value out of [our] asses" it's a core part of the LTV and if you just bothered to read Capital chapter 1, you would know this and not have written you're stupid fucking post. 1: Marx pulled it out of his ass because labor inputs are dogshit as a tool for predicting prices. 2: *your, dumbass. >You haven't read anything by Marx. The Communist Manifesto was a massive waste of my time. If anything else Marx ever wrote were worthwhile, then some of his followers would have output something of value, or at least summarize his ideas in a way that shows their use. None of you have been able to do so, and probably wouldn't be able to do so even if you weren't all fucking stupid.
>>648588 I don't think you should discuss Marxist economic theories if the Manifesto is the only thing you have read.
>be ancap/nazi/neolib >make stupid claim about authors you haven't read >get BTFO >whine about tone or post pepe/NPC/soyjack meme or do both simultaneously >make another stupid claim (or the same, who cares lol) You got a shitty MS paint flowchart where your brain should be.
>>648588 Pretty much your whole argument rest on the LTV not being empirically verified, proving that is obviously outside the scope of an image bored so i'm just gonna link Shaikh: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1ji_3v5yWLg And Cockshot: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=emnYMfjYh1Q Here are some of Cockshots economic papers as well http://paulcockshott.co.uk/onlineeconomicspapers/#vt The ones you should read are "What is at stake in the debate on value", "Testing the Labour Theory of Value: An Exchange", and "Defense of Empirical Evidence" Finally this >>648599
>>648599 Ah, but what if I lie about having read other works? Does that count for nothing, hmmm?
>>648557 <To the purchaser of a commodity belongs its use, and the seller of labour-power, by giving his labour, does no more, in reality, than part with the use-value that he has sold. From the instant he steps into the workshop, the use-value of his labour-power, and therefore also its use, which is labour, belongs to the capitalist. So? <We know that the value of each commodity is determined by the quantity of labour expended on and materialised in it, by the working-time necessary, under given social conditions, for its production. Oh hey, it's the stupid idea I've been shitting on from the start! Therefore, the value of labour-power, and the value which that labour-power creates in the labour-process, are two entirely different magnitudes; and this difference of the two values was what the capitalist had in view, when he was purchasing the labour-power. So, not oppressed, then? <This is the special service that the capitalist expects from labour-power, and in this transaction he acts in accordance with the “eternal laws” of the exchange of commodities. The seller of labour-power, like the seller of any other commodity, realises its exchange-value, and parts with its use-value. He cannot take the one without giving the other. The use-value of labour-power, or in other words, labour, belongs just as little to its seller, as the use-value of oil after it has been sold belongs to the dealer who has sold it. The owner of the money has paid the value of a day’s labour-power; his, therefore, is the use of it for a day; a day’s labour belongs to him. The circumstance, that on the one hand the daily sustenance of labour-power costs only half a day’s labour, while on the other hand the very same labour-power can work during a whole day, that consequently the value which its use during one day creates, is double what he pays for that use, this circumstance is, without doubt, a piece of good luck for the buyer, but by no means an injury to the seller. Aside from the fact that this is like listening to someone try to explain space travel with elaborate theories of phlogiston, I'm not seeing anything that justifies all the bitching in here. <As you can see, Marx does explain exploitation NOT as the result of wages paid below value and being unfair or unnatural or whatever, but as something entirely compatible with wages paid at the value of labor-power, therefore your argument is invalid. Hey, if Marx is cool with the arrangement of capitalists hiring workers and selling goods for more than the workers get paid, what have you guys been bitching about all this time? This is fucking stupid. You've put forth the case that Marx thinks workers aren't oppressed when they're paid less than the price of the sale of their output, despite every goddamn piece of shit Marxist from the last century and a half making exactly this argument, so I guess Marxists should just pack it up and go home, huh? >648655 >The ones you should read are Make the argument, don't waste my time throwing links to someone else making the argument.
>>648599 Setting the bar anywhere above the Manifesto will eject 99% of neolibs from debate.
>>648902 I don't mind doing that on a supposedly leftist board. The least you can do is to at least admit that you don't know the basics of Marxist theory before you start to post in a thread about the LTV:
>>648890 >This is fucking stupid. You've put forth the case that Marx thinks workers aren't oppressed when they're paid less than the price of the sale of their output, despite every goddamn piece of shit Marxist from the last century and a half making exactly this argument, so I guess Marxists should just pack it up and go home, huh? No, look up the fragment on machines to see what is possible to humanity Dad Kapital is in a lot of ways one long meditation on why this near perfect society based on machines is impossible under capitalism If Marx had discovered in his studies that capitalism wasn't limited in approaching this goal he would have said so He even gave a method for a capitalist system to avoid the boom bust crisis under capitalism which I presume the Chinese have been using to do their economic miracle with capitalist development of productive forces
>>648890 >Make the argument If you want test you're beliefs you're gonna have to read people who have looked at empirical evidence for LTV I can't just go out and make my own study on the LTV just to dunk on some dude on bunkerchan
(93.40 KB 1483x800 ltv-vs-price.jpg)
>>648927 Here I made this visual aid for people who can't grasp the concept of prices fluctuation around value
(70.99 KB 480x563 marx lol.png)
>>648953 LTV is empirically verified, and theoretically unchallenged. The only thing that happened is was that LTV was socially discredited, in bourgeois circles do to class interests shaping politics. No argument against LTV in this thread has reached beyond the level of attempting socially discrediting LTV.
(7.62 KB 300x300 marx-tongue.gif)
>>648979 >an obviously trash theory attempting to socially discredit LTV after the attempt at refuting it empirically and theoretically failed
>>648890 >>648979 >Still thinking Marx's basis for exploitation is based on wages If you still think this, you have just proven that you never actually read Marx before you decided to debate him here.
>>648997 Just in case the profit part confuses you.
>>648989 What is the LTV really? I've seen Cockshott's video but he only justififes how more labour intensive industries produce more expensive goods. Is that it? That value is created by the workers?
>>648916 >>648950 >>648989 >>648997 >>649004 >You have just proven that you never actually read Marx before you decided to debate him here. How have you not noticed virtually everyone here making this argument? It's fucking bizarre. >LTV is empirically verified, and theoretically unchallenged. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA You're so fucking stupid. >If you want test your beliefs, you're gonna have to read people who have looked at empirical evidence for LTV. There is a reason almost nobody believes that shit.
(31.15 KB 517x355 marx-hood.jpeg)
>>649005 It's a rather abstract argument and it's hard to put into intuitive terms. Consider the following, lets say you want to find out what the substance of value is in an economy For example you could ask your self whether value is determined by weight, then you'd find out that a heavier commodity does not necessarily mean more valuable, you could try size and also no bigger commodities do not necessarily are more valuable you could look at energy content, and that too doesn't really match up with value, you work through all the possible comparisons, and then you find that value matches labour time the closest Where most people get hung up is that the prices of individual commodities not necessary have to correspond to labour-time, because market exchanges are not capable of finding the correct price exactly, they just tend to fluctuate around the actual value of a commodity >>648959. There's other factors for example capitalists compete amongst them self for distorting this via marketing and here we find sometimes very successful marketing campaigns can distort this so that one capitalist gains at the expense of another. But that is a about who can realise the value. You have to understand here Marx tries to figure out objectively what it is that the economy revolves around, and capitalist want an explanation from economists what causes the prices of the particular commodity they sell to go up or down, they want a recipe for making more money, and Marx does seem to care about this very much he's interested in pursuing understanding of the hole system. By the way you could use the LTV to calculate exact prices for commodities in capitalism if you can convince capitalists to publish their internal allocation of labour time, but they usually try to hid that information.
(32.87 KB 365x600 marx laser eyes.jpeg)
>>649078 >There is a reason almost nobody believes that shit. See you are proving my point, you are arguing about LTV being socially discredited but that has no bearing whether or not it's true, objective reality does not care about consensus believes. Oh by the way the reason so few economists support LTV is because then the capitalists won't hire them if they argue against their class interests, It's like the Church in the dark ages where the theory of evolution got biologists ousted form the club of respectable intellectuals. The ruling ideas of every epoch are always the ideas of the ruling classes. In the middle ages surplus extraction was legitimized by the eternal order that god had installed with god being the king maker, and therefore humans could not have evolved, because that broke the justification for the king's status in society. This type of justification for surplus extraction is no longer available for capitalism, because capitalism needs scientists and free exchange of knowledge to function, which breaks theocracies. And hence there's a similar dynamics where economists are being pushed into the role of fabricating pseudo clerical explanations to try to justify the surplus the capitalists extract. And the cost for this distortion of reality in support of capitalist class interests is bad economic performance, because proper analysis of the system isn't allowed.
>>649078 So in the end you don't believe the LTV is true not because you can refute that it's empirically verified but because you can't sit through either a single economics lecture, a 20 minute yt video, or just read some fairly short papers on the subject that a beginner could follow, not to mention you think that you can come here and btfo le stupid Marxist on the LTV after reading the Manifesto which if I recall correctly dosen't even talk about the LTV.
>>648989 https://youtu.be/g4aqJ2HCRio Very good video about how the LTV got discredit among bourgeois circles
>>649078 >How have you not noticed virtually everyone here making this argument? It's fucking bizarre. You literally stated Marx's view on exploitation is based on wages. Its not, its based on surplus labour vs necessary labour.
>LTV is about individual transactions and not an observation of capitalism in its totality How the fuck do people keep making this mistake?
>>648890 >I'm not seeing anything that justifies all the bitching in here. You said earlier: >Can you not tell that I’ve read Das Kapital by now? I have a hard copy which I’ve filled the margins of with my own notes. >The ethical flow of value is the ENTIRE POINT of LTV! It sits as the material justification for making claims regarding the exploitation of laborers. You were asked to show as much as a single quote from Marx claiming that. Not only did you fail to provide one, now you are "answering" to a post where Marx explicitly said the opposite (in Das Kapital, no less). The bitch here is you. You are a bigger bitch than somebody who bought Daikatana. If you don't want to read Das Kapital, that's fine. But don't lie about having done so. Accept that Marx didn't claim what your fictional Marx said about capitalism. He also didn't claim that the individual worker would receive something equivalent to his whole contribution under socialism (see Critique of the Gotha Programme) because of deductions for the elderly, R&D, and a couple other things – so it would have been rather weird for him to have the position about muh full just share that you hallucinated him to have.
i love how every single mises.org article unironically starts up with "i can't be bothered to explain anything marx said, so i'm going ot create a strawman of him and this why that will be 100% correct"
>>649309 This is how you know that they don't read anything what so ever.
Alright I THINK I understand. So. 5 dollar sandwich. 2 dollars went into the materials, 2 dollars went to the two child labor slaves. The 1 remaining dollar is profit. Marx argues that the child labor slaves are NOT being exploited because they are paid 1 dollar each, and thus cannot buy the sandwich they help make. Rather Marx argues that they are being exploited because the 1 dollar, the profit dollar, belongs to them but it goes to the capitalist instead. Am I getting this right?
>>649353 What I don't get is then, if wages are not exploitation, then why do many self-proclaimed Marxists claim rent is exploitation? I let you borrow this thing for money, you use it. It's a transaction, where's the exploitation?
>>649309 >Mr. Tugan repeats the old trick of the reactionaries: first to misinterpret socialism by making it out to be an absurdity, and then to triumphantly refute the absurdity Sad to see how Lenin's words on liberals strawmanning are still relevant
>>649365 Also, self-employed business owners. The argument against them is that they're not revolutionary, okay. But they're not doing anything wrong if they're not exploiting anyone? So why take their possessions?
>>649367 I think it's also ADHD. It's not just that they can't read an arcane book translated from 19th century German, they can't read books in general. Like the guy who suggested Varian's book without having read it – I bet the habit of sitting down with a book and reading a whole chapter without interruption is completely alien to him.
>>649381 not exploiting anyone? exceedingly rare--it would have to be a one man operation. muh small business fags always forget how much the petty bourgeoisie exploit their own family.
>>649402 Exploit their own family? Small business dad sporadically hires his son to do some manual labor for his small business. He pays his son a wage. Same dad also paid for everything for his son growing up. Food, clothes, bills, toys, school supplies and whatever else. And on top of that same dad pays for his son's extremely expensive (for their living standards) university. Now you tell me how exactly is he exploiting his son when he has paid more for his son than his son has contributed in labor.
>>649365 the rentier did nothing, in most cases the rentier just has the virtue of owning the working tool that the capitalist or worker uses, he is purely a creature that extracts suplus from the guy that actually manages and extracts the surplus value
>>649410 Lol, some how doing things, preforming labor and paying for something makes something not exploitation. Ok. That's like saying if I bought a hooker a nice meal and a diamond reckless that when I raped her it wasn't rape.
(61.76 KB 940x1024 1572079747630.jpg)
>>649410 I wonder where the dads that do this got all that money if not from surplus extraction.
>>649414 Not from his son. Not from workers either, if he needed workers he wouldn't be employing his son (likely for a lower wage than standard). The implication is that most of the profit was in fact made by the dad himself. >>649413 What kind of retarded analogy is this? We're talking about the LTV here, not raping hookers. I loan you money. You work for me to pay off 1% of that money, the rest I forgive. That's what we're talking about here.
>>649412 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/inside-the-market/article-a-history-of-the-stock-market-investments-made-by-karl-marx-and/ >During retirement, Engel’s portfolio produced an income sufficient to cover his living costs, as well as provide Marx with an annual subsidy of £380. This effectively gave both men membership in the rentier class, which many communists despise. >Engels had a rationale for why it was okay to be a rentier. It went like this: Trading stocks “simply adjusts the distribution of the surplus value.” It doesn’t expropriate it from the workers. Care to explain this?
>>649431 my answer to that is so what? unlike that retarded article posted a million posts ago claims, neither i nor marx nor engels claims that because you are bourgeois your thought is automatically invalid. besides even though he recieved pannies from engels marx still lived in poverty, so imagine this, what if a beggar got money from a church that got it from a huge land owner, is that beggar a rentier because of that? are fucking hearing yourself?
>>649399 >ADHD Explains much. Mises' articles and other works from neolib/lolbert think-thanks are very easy to read and require zero abstraction.
>>649439 I'm asking you to explain Engels' rationale. Also, the article claims Marx himself participate in trading for a time.
>>649446 it was not a rationale, like he did not just own stock, he owned a full factory employing people, why would excuse rentiers for being parasites of the parasites and not excuse porkies when he was also one?
>>649468 Alright then, semantics aside (English is not my first language). Explain to me why according to Engles rentiers don't exploit anybody.
>>649468 >he owned a full factory employing people No he didn't. Engels was employed as a manager
>>649470 just so you know engels doesn't claim that they directly exploit people, but he does claim that their existance causes more people to be exploited. and they don't simply because of the same reason they are parasites, they do nothing, they just own things, for example they just own the land the capitalist has the factory in, if the land was owned by the capitalist himself then exploitation would happen either way
>>649431 >>649446 >>649468 >Interestingly, one of the first people who realized the significance of limited liability for the development of capitalism was Karl Marx, the supposed arch-enemy of capitalism. Unlike many of his contemporary free-market advocates (and Adam Smith before them), who opposed limited liability, Marx understood how it would enable the mobilization of large sums of capital that were needed for the newly emerging heavy and chemical industries by reducing the risk for individual investors. Writing in 1865, when the stock market was still very much a side-show in the capitalist drama, Marx had the foresight to call the joint-stock company ‘capitalist production in its highest development’. Like his free-market opponents, Marx was aware of, and criticized, the tendency for limited liability to encourage excessive risk-taking by managers. However, Marx considered it to be a side-effect of the huge material progress that this institutional innovation was about to bring. Of course, in defending the ‘new’ capitalism against its free-market critics, Marx had an ulterior motive. He thought the joint-stock company was a ‘point of transition’ to socialism in that it separated ownership from management, thereby making it possible to eliminate capitalists (who now do not manage the firm) without jeopardizing the material progress that capitalism had achieved. <Ha-Joon Chang, 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism Pragmatism, maybe?
>>649353 >Am I getting this right? Yeah. Pretty much. >>649365 >why do many self-proclaimed Marxists claim rent is exploitation This is only my interpretation so I can't speak for them. Taking profit and renterism have similar dynamics. Imagine I own a building, and some people have a co-op there. Once a month, I go and collect rent. That rent must come from the surplus value that I as the landlord will now take for me. This is not so different than if I owned the company and just took the same amount of surplus value from the employees' work. So as a landlord I am appropriating surplus value of workers and hence engaging in exploitation. >>649381 >they're not doing anything wrong It's best not to use morals when discussing marxism. >So why take their possessions? keep reading
"Price is set by the quantity of supply and the degree of desire to purchase something at a given price point." NOOOOOOO, YOU CAN'T BASE VALUE IN PEOPLE'S SUBJECTIVE DECISIONS! THAT'S IDEALISM!!!! VALUE IS DETERMINED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE QUANTITY OF LABOR TIME INVESTED IN THE PRODUCT!!! "Ok, so if I spend my whole life making mud pies, then I have added tremendous value to the economy." NOOOOOOOO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT, SOMEONE HAS TO DECIDE TO PURCHASE YOUR PRODUCT BEFORE IT IS GIVEN VALUE!!!!! Absolutely euphoric.
>>649588 >what is socially necessary labor time
>>649588 mudpie argument is the first example of NPC in history
>Marx’s idea was that the amount of labor used to produce a good is proportional to its value. The theory is often justified by the following argument. If a haircut involves half an hour of labor, at $40 per hour, the haircut has $20 of value. If it also needs the use of scissors and brushes that cost a total of $60, and lose $1 of their value (through wear) on each haircut, the total value of the haircut is $21. Of the tools the scissors themselves cost $20 because they took 45 minutes of labor to forge from a lump of steel— costing $12.50—into the pair of scissors. The same reasoning can be applied to explain why the lump of steel cost $12.50, tracing time and costs for producing steel from iron ore. It is possible to trace the expenditure on all the intermediate inputs until we arrive back at the original natural resources, which are free—so all the value has been created by labor. >Marx pointed out that it is too difficult to calculate the value of any good in this way, so value should be determined by the “congealed” lump of labor that the good contains. He also said that value is determined by the “normal” amount of labor we expect its production to take. An inefficient hairdresser may take an hour to cut someone’s hair, but the haircut’s cost should not then rise by $20. Marx did not deny that supply and demand in the marketplace would influence the value or price of goods in the short run, but said that in the long run the basic structure and dynamics of the value system must come from labor. <The Economics Book, DK How accurate is this take?
i love how half this thread is just people making up strawmans, literally just claiming things marx never claimed. the internet and social media have really fucked up people's attention.
(14.55 KB 1486x137 DiamondLTV.png)
>>649588 >VALUE IS DETERMINED EXCLUSIVELY BY THE QUANTITY OF LABOR TIME INVESTED IN THE PRODUCT!!! Why the fuck do you keep getting the subjective value someone applies to something mixed up with the time related value Marx is talking about? And why do you keep conflating value with price? >"Ok, so if I spend my whole life making mud pies, then I have added tremendous value to the economy." >NOOOOOOOO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT, SOMEONE HAS TO DECIDE TO PURCHASE YOUR PRODUCT BEFORE IT IS GIVEN VALUE!!!!! Marx's analysis has to do with the economy as it exists in its totality, not in meaningless mudpies that are never a factor in it. If tomorrow society found a use for mudpies, then we could begin the study of mudpies as a generalized commodity produced at average rates i.e. the socially necessary labour time to produce the commodity. If there is not Use Value for the mudpie however, then it is not an observable aspect of the economy.
>>649636 It's good. There's always more depth to it. But that's the gist. The biggest nitpick is that value =/= price. But it's fine to assume it does when you're familiarizing yourself with it.
<You're making mudpies and offering them for $20? So what? No I won't investigate this. A product that hasn't been sold hasn't entered the economy, therefore studying it does not fall under the domain of Economics. <You managed to sell one of your $20 mudpies? Then that must mean that $20 accurately reflects the amount of labor time put into the mudpie, as God Emperor Adam Smith foretold! What do you mean, "investigate other prices the product might have sold for"? Who cares? The product changed hands, and that's all that matters. LTVfags ACTUALLY think like this.
>>649659 >Why the fuck do you keep getting the subjective value someone applies to something mixed up with the time related value Marx is talking about? Because those are the two principle mechanisms for price formation being debated in this thread. Keep up mate. >And why do you keep conflating value with price? I dunno, people keep trying to justify LTV ITT by showing correlations between the revenue in various industries and the amount of labor hours, so why don't you answer that question for me? >Marx's analysis has to do with the economy as it exists in its totality, not in meaningless mudpies that are never a factor in it. Tell me more about how large the economy is, as though that qualifies as an argument. An atom is unimaginably insignificant compared to the universe. Wow, atomic theory BTFO! >If tomorrow society found a use for mudpies, then we could begin the study of mudpies as a generalized commodity produced at average rates i.e. the socially necessary labour time to produce the commodity. >>649687
>>649656 >internet and social media More like dedicated organizations, i.e. neolib think-thanks, have spreaded disinformation massively across the Web. Sum up with >>649399 and you have Dunning-Kruger lolberts engaging debate clueless about the subject. >>649703 You're edging closer to trolling, beware.
(14.63 KB 250x238 2gpruz.jpg)
>>649605 >socially necessary labor time >A given mass of new value is produced in a given time, but if and how this new value is realised in money terms and distributed as income and reinvestment is finally established only after products are sold at specific market prices. If the market for a commodity is oversupplied, then labour-time has been expended in excess of what was socially necessary, and exchange value falls. If the market for a commodity is undersupplied, then the labour-time expended on its production has been less than what is socially necessary, and exchange value rises. What the fuck? This is literally just supply and demand put into different language, though shittier because of an extra unscientific assertion that there is some "right" amount of some commodity, in a normative sense. If this is literally what you believe, then we have nothing to disagree about.
>>649731 >same thing somewhat but with broader conclusions like the tendency for the rate of profit to fall
>>649588 >SOMEONE HAS TO DECIDE TO PURCHASE YOUR PRODUCT BEFORE IT IS GIVEN VALUE yeah no shit brainlet. you can't have a market with only one person
>>649765 What's more, Marxism is actually overly optimistic because it is based on LTV, which implies a kind of naturally equalizing force in capitalism, because it treats all labor as inherently equal. This could very easily lead to apathy. I have a suspicion that Smith, Ricardo et al. were not actually being honest with their belief in LTV. I believe they invented it as a ploy to manipulate people because, as early bourgeois economists, it was in their interest to invent a moral justification for capitalism, to give it allies in its fight against feudalism, mercantilism, et al.
>>649824 >because it treats all labor as inherently equal lol
>>649687 You seem to be honest in your retardation but bad faith in your question, so I'll answer it quickly. Mudpies are not relevant to prices because they are not a commodity that is sold on an open market. Exceptions, like an art gallery for gullible libertarians that sells mudpies once does not invalidate the theory. It's like newtonian physics, you must abstract a lot of details in order to make sense of the general motion of objects. Just read the first chapter of capital, the mudpie argument is literally the first example he uses to explain the dual nature of a commodity. >>649765 LOL. OK, mr trump. >>649824 ?_? >>649833 ?_? who let the schizos out?
>>649833 I mean, Adam Smith's EXPLICIT GOAL for writing Wealth of Nations and the like was to convince people to adopt free market policies instead of Mercantilist ones. Who gives a shit whether or not he actually believed everything he wrote if it worked? Do you think all the neolib think tanks believe the shit they say?
>>649824 you are simply mystifying the learning process. of course learning a skill constitutes labor that should be compensated when it becomes useful for society. why should a doctor get paid more than a sanitation worker? if a sanitation worker received the same training they could do a comparable job in any normal circumstance. In the US becoming a physician is paywalled by years of expensive instruction. why not simply pay people during the process instead of creating an incentive to pick any other field? make it so anyone has the opportunity to achieve?
>>649878 the crux of the mudpie argument is it's lack of use value, that is, it's desirability. If it is not being bought and sold, then it is not a commodity. You have to look at things in the macro level, not an individual "did this shit once to own the commies lmao" case. Also remember that value =/= price.
>>649703 >I dunno, people keep trying to justify LTV ITT by showing correlations between the revenue in various industries and the amount of labor hours, so why don't you answer that question for me? If you are referring to Cockshott, then what he is doing is taking an analytical approach towards falsifying the LTV. As in, he is observing the economy in it's totality to see whether or not there exists a correlation between labour and price. The Value is NOT the price in this scenario still, but by showing that there exists correlation between the two for generalized commodities, we can prove that value has fundamnental relevance towards understanding economic relations as a whole. LTV is merely an analysis of how socially necessary labour time relates to value itself, in the classical use of the term. >Tell me more about how large the economy is, as though that qualifies as an argument. An atom is unimaginably insignificant compared to the universe. Wow, atomic theory BTFO! Marx's theory is literally a theory dealing with generalized commodities within the general economy. Its not about individual transactions, but rather the entirety of the production of that generalized commodity within the entire market and society. >>649687 >You managed to sell one of your $20 mudpies? Then that must mean that $20 accurately reflects the amount of labor time put into the mudpie, as God Emperor Adam Smith foretold! What do you mean, "investigate other prices the product might have sold for"? Who cares? The product changed hands, and that's all that matters But it literally does involve looking at the entirety of the production of that commodity in society and it's general average. Have you really spent this whole thread not having read about SNLT once?
>>649501 >It's best not to use morals when discussing marxism. I'm not using morals though. I'm saying taking their possessions cannot be justified if they are not exploiting anybody (Marxists consider exploitation bad, thus wrong).
>>649501 >This is only my interpretation so I can't speak for them. Taking profit and renterism have similar dynamics. >Imagine I own a building, and some people have a co-op there. Once a month, I go and collect rent. That rent must come from the surplus value that I as the landlord will now take for me. This is not so different than if I owned the company and just took the same amount of surplus value from the employees' work. So as a landlord I am appropriating surplus value of workers and hence engaging in exploitation. That would be the case IF the workers created value with their labor. But they literally don't. The "they're doing nothing" thing goes both ways. The rentier does nothing, but it's the same for the tenants too. Taking money from people is not enough on its own to be considered exploitation else socialist states have literally been engaging in exploitation with their hotels and taxes.
>>649731 It isn't just supply and a demand but worse with supply and demand there's no way to figure what the equilibrium price is the LTV explains this
>>649824 >I have a suspicion that Smith, Ricardo et al. were not actually being honest with their belief in LTV. I believe they invented it as a ploy to manipulate people because, as early bourgeois economists, it was in their interest to invent a moral justification for capitalism, to give it allies in its fight against feudalism, mercantilism, et al. Now they can't accept that Adam Smith was much closer to Marx's economic theory's then anything by the marginalist. Do you have any proof of this? Because otherwise you're suggesting that we shouldn't take Smith at his word.
>>650135 Assuming that person is a laborer than some of the money he gets from his job is taken. Already some of his money is taken by his boss through profits, and again because the land lord is taken the laborers money without making anything. There's no practical distinction between a land lord and a capitlist taking the money, either way they are both taking the workers money.
>>650123 Well then you are using morals if you think Marxists thinks exploitation is wrong. Regardless while you could see exploitation is wrong, and considering Marx's word choice I think he did believe it's wrong, you don't have too think it's wrong. It's never explicitly stated as such and in fact there's a whole branch of Marxism (analytic Marxism) that expressly believes that exploitation is simply and economic fact of capitalism and that there's no moral dimension to it. So really it depends some Marxists think it's wrong but it's not directly part of Marxism.
Edited last time by antious666 on 07/06/2020 (Mon) 18:23:29.
>>649959 >Marx's theory is literally a theory dealing with generalized commodities within the general economy. Its not about individual transactions, but rather the entirety of the production of that generalized commodity within the entire market and society. Non-reductionist theories are not scientific. Sorry. Either explain the connection between individual transactions and the whole economy, or cope. >But it literally does involve looking at the entirety of the production of that commodity in society and it's general average. Have you really spent this whole thread not having read about SNLT once? I sell a mudpie for $20, and then my neighbor then sells one for $40, and then the value of my mudpie magically increases by 50%! Incredible! Completely unconnected events! Spooky action at a distance!
>>654473 >I sell a mudpie for $20, and then my neighbor then sells one for $40, and then the value of my mudpie magically increases by 50%! Let me correct myself. I sell a mudpie for $20, and my neighbor sells one for $20, BUT HE WORKS TWICE AS LONG to make it, therefore my mudpie magically increases in value.
>>654473 >Non-reductionist theories are not scientific. Sorry. Either explain the connection between individual transactions and the whole economy, or cope. Where do you have that "standard" of science from? What you are saying amounts to a taboo, that it is haram to model a system as anything else than an outcome of logically pre-existing individual components acting only according to their inner nature. Always first think of the parts, then their sum, or else you go to science hell… Evidently, scientists aren't obeying your taboo. Given precise enough sensors and a sufficient amount of processing power and storage, we could just model biology as physics, since biology ultimately is physics. But we don't have that power. Does that mean we shouldn't be allowed to think about biology? Of course not, but what your philosophical position amounts to (if you try to be serious about it) is this ban on thinking. What scientists in the real world actually do is modelling on different scales with different models. Different scales also exist within economics (and it's more levels than the mentioned micro and macro). The predictive power of some model that posits some relationship between labor-time in the aggregate and profit trends in the aggregate is an empirical question. Here's an analogy with physics: We have models about the behavior of gases that don't track individual atoms and yet manage to tell you something about pressure, weight, and temperature. According to the philosophy you are presenting here, you "know" a priori that these models can't be serious science or useful for anything and are crimes against real science. >I sell a mudpie A made-up scenario isn't empirical evidence.
>>654602 >Evidently, scientists aren't obeying your taboo. Given precise enough sensors and a sufficient amount of processing power and storage, we could just model biology as physics, since biology ultimately is physics. Any biologist knows HOW biology reduces to physics, even if he finds it convenient to ignore some of the details. If some aspect of biology appeared to be irreducible to physics, then it would not be considered science. Which is why, i.e., many consider discussion of consciousness to not fall under the demain of science but rather philosophy or religion. Explain HOW SNLT etc. reduces to individual transactions or fuck off. >A made-up scenario isn't empirical evidence. OH SHIT! YOU GOT ME! IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE A KNICK-KNACK AND SELL IT FOR A SMALL SUM OF CASH! Let's make it concrete, huh? When I was 8, I made a car out of legos and sold it to a friend for $10. There's your fucking empirical evidence. Seethe.
>>656050 >Any biologist knows HOW biology reduces to physics, even if he finds it convenient to ignore some of the details. He doesn't find it convenient to avoid modelling the atoms of an organism, it is quite out of scope of what the biologists can possibly do today. And that is the point. Your position, now made explicit, is equivalent to arguing that the biologists should not be allowed to talk about organisms if they can't model them on that level.
>>654473 >Non-reductionist theories are not scientific. Sorry. Can you develop this?
>>654480 You should actually try reading Marx
>>654480 >Let me correct myself. I sell a mudpie for $20, and my neighbor sells one for $20, BUT HE WORKS TWICE AS LONG to make it, therefore my mudpie magically increases in value. No, the value is determined by the socially necessary labour time demanded by the larger economy. Someone being slower does not increase the value.
Emperical studies which prove LTV
>>654480 Let's clear one thing up, when we're talking about prices, exchange values here, we're talking about the going market price. What classical economists called the "natural price".
>>656050 >Explain HOW SNLT etc. reduces to individual transactions or fuck off. <SNLT is lower than prevailing market price <entrepreneurs realize that they can make this especially profitably <they do so <supply expands, price falls to SNLT <SNLT is higher than prevailing market price <goods are being sold at a loss <firms shift production away from it or go out of business If it takes someone an hour to produce mudpies but the market doesn't want to pay an hour for it, mudpies will stop being produced by profit-seeking markets. NB this is also why the Law of Value is a dynamic specific to capitalism (or more precisely generalized commodity production), not a moral intuition or a model for socialism or what have you.
>>656050 >Explain HOW SNLT etc. reduces to individual transactions or fuck off. I'll try to give a simple explanation of the LTV and SNLT using prices. Keep in mind, this is a simplification of the theory for your benefit. An individual exists in a society. When he produces a commodity, the price he will probabilistically sell it at, in an individual transaction, will be heavily influenced by the average cost of the production of that commodity. Furthermore, under normal circumstances, commodities tend to have a "lower limit" on price. This lower limit is defined by the cost to produce such commodity (simplified): lower limit on price = wages + capital cost A company cannot survive for long selling commodities below their lower limit. This BTFOs supply and demand btw. There is no apparent "natural" upper limit on price. Under normal circumstances, in a non-monopolized market, prices are generally determined as such: price of commodity = wages + capital cost + profit/mark-up This is how many businesses price their merchandise, btw. Maybe they change the variables around, but it is inherently an optimization formula for good prices while staying above the lower limit and making an acceptable profit. They don't do mumbojumbo calculations trying to find what the client's "sentimental value" is of their merchandise. The profit/markup has downward pressure due to competition. A company can retain competitive prices and either reduce cost (optimization, automation, innovation), or reduce profit. It's not always easy or possible to reduce costs, so they are incentivized to reduce profit to stay competitive. If we do a little digging, we might find what this capital's cost is. capital = property rent (land, patents, etc) + machine cost + materials cost Machines and materials are commodities, so they follow the same formula as above. Meaning: price of commodity = wages + cost of machine/material + profit + rent price of commodity = wages + ( wages + cost of machine/material + profit + rent) + profit + rent You can consider materials from nature as free since you don't have to pay for them to exist, they already do. The extraction will imply wages + rent + machine costs though. So basically, at the end of everything, the cost of a commodity has two major components. price of commodity = wages + rent/profit The interesting part of these two things is that wages is payed to people who actually do work. They move stuff around, transform matter, etc etc. The rent/profit part is merely an overhead that must be charged on top of the "absolute lowest" wage cost. This means that the price is higher than the actual wages being payed. Which means that workers are not getting "the full fruit of their labor" back since a portion of it has to be handed out to non-working rentiers/profiteers. Turns out, this portion is a really big one, and hence exploitation exists. Going back to the SNLT, the profit rate across industries tends to be around the same, with a _tendency_ to decrease because of competition. This means that the average selling price of a commodity under normal circumstances will be: average price = average wage cost + average rent/profit Depending on your company's competitive advantage, you might be able to tweak your company's wage cost, or profit/rent rate, but this average price will act like a strong gravitational body to your prices, meaning you won't be able to price your commodities too far from it. This is present in a generalized commodity economy, such as ours. When the economy is taken out of it, meaning that there is no economy, then this breaks down. Your examples are pleading this. The trouble is that the economy exists only when people are actively trading commodities. It is an emergent phenomenon, so to speak, because it is a social one on the scale of societies. Take a step back, think about why you refuse to seriously consider this theory. Ask yourself whether your moral values are getting in the way of your willingness to consider the validity. Ask yourself how all these smart people could dupe themselves with this theory, really try to understand it first. You'll find that it's not that special. In fact, explain it to someone who runs a business. I guarantee that you will find sympathies with this theory. Just switch the word exploitation with "profit extraction" or something more neutral.
LTV is actually a pretty good example of something that is derived from microfoundations, even if it's about large-scale social behavior. Shaikh-style empirical macroevidence for it came much after classical economics theorized it. Ofc there are plenty of other economic phenomena (classic example being the business cycle) where observation preceded theory and where providing microfoundations is a collection of breezey just-so stories at best. This doesn't mean you can't formulate and test hypotheses about these! Praxxy insistence on NO NO YOU NEED TO SPECIFY MICROFOUNDATIONS is p absurd. Consciousness presumably supervenes on brain states in some way (how??? we know very little so far!!! really just that we have direct evidence of consciousness and that non-materialist hypotheses have a bad track record so it's probably reducible in some way!) but we still talk about psychological phenomena as such.
>>656468 >The Empirical Strength of the Labour Theory of Value For ants?
>>645742 >whines about moralism >in the same post acts like feelings are objective Do you not notice the dissonance faggot?
>>656772 it's a pdf just zoom my nigga
>>646923 > not the classical economist jargon sense of the term It's like you're a literal teenager who knows nothing about Marxism. This shit IS built on classical economy, as opposed to the marginal valur mumbojumbo magic ramblings.
>>645412 lmao are you fucking retarded? genuine question. Think for a moment about what profit is in accounting terms for a sec, it's the difference between cost and price. All that has to happen for the rate of profit to decrease is for costs to grow faster than final prices. Almost every economic theory which posits increasing capital intensity posits a falling rate of profit. Look, this isn't some fucking hocus pocus. You can go to the fucking federal reserve website right now and check if the rate of profit has been falling in the US. And it has been, no matter what method of depreciation accounting you use. The trend line is always negative.
>>654480 Marx BTFO'd this dumb ass argument within the first 30 pages of Kapital 150 years ago. Fucking lolberts have been using the same three arguments for all eternity.
>>656218 "Aerobic organisms gain energy from digesting sugar." "Can you prove that chemically?" "C6H12O6 (s) + 6 O2 (g) → 6 CO2 (g) + 6 H2O (l) + heat" "Ah, cool, now that's settled, we can continue from the knowledge that sugar is digested, without having to continually re-derive the underlying chemical reaction." This is how science works.
>>656399 <My mudpie is not increased 50% in value by someone working twice as long <But if 50 million people spend an hour to make a mudpie and 50 million people spend two hours on it, THEN the mudpie is worth 1.5 hours labor time More non-reductionist hogwash. Google the sorites paradox.
>>656922 That doesn't amount to modelling the organism on the atomic level.
>>656872 reread my comment until you understand it.
>>656932 you were the one who proposed we had to run everything on a supercomputer to do science
>>656907 That really surprised me when I first read Capital. But then I checked the footnotes and realized that the asshole devoured so much fucking literature to make Capital, he has all his bases covered. Marx is like >In 1423, a priest wrote on the bathroom wall "bla bla bla" while taking a massive shit, this is actually wrong and this Sumerian souffle recipe hints as to why. >>656922 That isn't how it works though... You realize that people studied biology before they knew the chemical formula for respiration (which is a simplified model of the real functioning of chemical reactions, btw)? Accept it, you refuse to accept this classic economic principle because it goes against your identity. So much of yourself depends on you not accepting this, that there is nothing we can say that will change your perception. You refuse to even consider the possibility that this makes sense because the risk to your ego is so large.
>>656927 You don't understand the sorites paradox. It is not about the small scale really being equal to the big scale like you want it to be. The point of it is the imprecision of language. Your understanding is upside-down.
>>656936 You lost track of who said what. Follow the comment-chain back to >>654602 and read again.
>>656941 He's busy explaining how a drop of water also has high and low tides, since the ocean is just many drops of water.
>>656938 >That isn't how it works though... You realize that people studied biology before they knew the chemical formula for respiration (which is a simplified model of the real functioning of chemical reactions, btw)? Another example from biology is evolution by natural selection. We now have a pretty decent understanding of the chemical basis of inheritance. Darwin didn't! All he knew was that at least some traits seem to get passed down (hence all the tedious sections in Origins on pigeon-fanciers and so) and there's some random variation, and that from THAT it follows that traits that help you reproduce more should increase over time. There's a sense in which this is reductionist, in that it's usefully eliminating e.g. Aristotelian species-concepts or whatever, but it's not reducing anything to a non-biological level, it's a genuine scientific advance that remains agnostic about the substrate in question. (And actually this substrate agnosticism is what allows us to apply it outside a relatively narrow domain. The same applies to, e.g., compsci, where we can talk about the properties of computer programs independent of their computer substrate or the language they're written in, &c.)
>>656927 Everybody selling at 1.5h with 1h production will be making a profit and everybody selling at 1.5h with 2h production will be losing money. There will never be capitalists who consciously decide to make that good for over 1.5h, because it will be a waste of time. They will go out of business and the market will slowly clear closer to a price of 1h. Over time the SNLT becomes lower and lower, the way to beat the SNLT will become more capital intensive, monopolies will build, the opportunity for profit will shrink, the rate of profit will fall. This is all basic Marxism you could have known about if you read 3 fucking chapters of Kapital instead of reading secondary literature on a fucking think tank website
>>656650 >This BTFOs supply and demand btw. There is no apparent "natural" upper limit on price. Does "supply and demand" predict such a limit? >They don't do mumbojumbo calculations trying to find what the client's "sentimental value" is of their merchandise. 1. the clients do that 2. the sellers ALSO try to do that. as someone who has studied value investing, anticipating future consumer demand is a huge part of valuation >You can consider materials from nature as free since you don't have to pay for them to exist, they already do. i mean i guess, though none of the natural world is unowned anymore >Take a step back, think about why you refuse to seriously consider this theory. Ask yourself whether your moral values are getting in the way of your willingness to consider the validity. Your post (and all the others in this thread that actually bothered to explain anything) has demonstrated to me that what I already understood of Marxism was correct, and it is on the whole logical and quite uncontroversial. >>649731 >>638765 >>639371 me My main beefs are: 1. why is all of this phrased in such idiosyncratic, non-mainstream language? don't cry about being excluded from the mainstream until you've tried bridging that gap yourself. 2. why are people adamant that this is so incompatible with marginalism/more mainstream economics? 3. why are people so adamant that LTV is the "foundational atom" of the economy when it's very clearly an emergent phenomenon precipitated on the general state of the entire economy? 4. why are people taking umbrage with methodological reductionism when the problem vanishes entirely when you just acknowledge that LTV is an emergent phenomenon?
(264.28 KB 1032x1032 sigh.jpg)
>>656963 >why is all of this phrased in such idiosyncratic, non-mainstream language? don't cry about being excluded from the mainstream until you've tried bridging that gap yourself. What mainstream? Mainstream economics? Probably because they actively changed the vocabulary to suit their rhetorical purposes. This is the language of classical political economy. It was abandoned when it became ideologically inconvenient. >why are people adamant that this is so incompatible with marginalism/more mainstream economics? LTV is literally the only general theory of prices left. Austrian econ doesn't have one. Neo-classicals gave up after general equilibrium models broke down under mathematical instability. >why are people so adamant that LTV is the "foundational atom" of the economy when it's very clearly an emergent phenomenon precipitated on the general state of the entire economy? The way Marx was able to prove the validity of LTV was simple, what can the individual capitalist control to expand his profit assuming he is buying all his inputs at the going market price. It's quite simple, he can increase the intensity of labor by making people work harder or by increasing the length of the working day. The goal of capitalist production is to maximize the surplus created by labor, whether by boosting productivity with machines or discipline. >why are people taking umbrage with methodological reductionism when the problem vanishes entirely when you just acknowledge that LTV is an emergent phenomenon? Equilibrium prices are an emergent pheonomon, that's literally what we're talking about and it's also what mainstream economics has made their object of study as well.
>>656963 >1. why is all of this phrased in such idiosyncratic, non-mainstream language? don't cry about being excluded from the mainstream until you've tried bridging that gap yourself. It is a 150 years old and it builds primarily upon Ricardian + Smithian + other's economics. As with any field, you use the language that was mainly already there. Many people do change the language, all the time. And some terms have been "re-branded" as a result of new theoretical works. But when making reference to specific marxist concepts that exist exclusively in marxism, then it's best to refer to them by their "proper" names. Kind of like science for popular consumption with watered down language and concepts (which often lead to grave misunderstandings) vs using the proper terms of marxist economics. >2. why are people adamant that this is so incompatible with marginalism/more mainstream economics? Because it largely is. I can't personally speak about marginalism, I couldn't understand the quick skim of wikipedia. Economics is used to justify policy. It is also a very strong ideological force. People don't realize how and why things move the way they do, because they have been indoctrinated with voodoo economics. A better response to this question is Michael Hudson's book, J is for Junk Economics. You can probably find it in the reading thread if you search or ask, or on libgen. >3. why are people so adamant that LTV is the "foundational atom" of the economy when it's very clearly an emergent phenomenon precipitated on the general state of the entire economy? Perhaps they mean that the commodity is the "fundamental atom". Understanding the commodity-form "unlocks" a lot of understanding about a lot of things, including the destination for working class emancipation, the movement of capital, etc etc. The LTV is very important because once it really clicks, real world economics starts to make a lot of sense. With neoclassical economics, you are left high and dry, and no better off in this crazy and very complex world. Personally, I've found it very useful to understand how to run a business. I know exactly who produces labor, what managers are used for, how prices are determined (which is important in my industry because price discovery is very very hard), etc etc. >4. why are people taking umbrage with methodological reductionism when the problem vanishes entirely when you just acknowledge that LTV is an emergent phenomenon? I'm afraid I don't understand the question. I haven't really read the thread in it's entirety. If you're saying about the arguments about the individual doing mud pies, then yes, they are taking umbrage because the phenomenon comes from an society that engages in commodity production (ie. a society that has markets). The mud pie argument is refuted in the first chapter of Capital. People come here, claim they have read Capital, and can't even acknowledge the refutation found in the first chapter, which gives away their lie. It's fine if people haven't read Capital and want to discuss the theory, but it has to be done in good faith, without lying that you've read the first chapter and we can help you understand. Once the person understands, he is free to discredit it, refute it, discard it, or whatever. The other poster came here to argue, not learn/discuss/teach/grow, but was quickly found out of his depth and apparently left. >>656964 F = G*M*m/r² That is Newton's gravitational formula. Tidal Force = F1 - F2 Where F1 is the closest point, and F2 is the farthest point to the moon. Simplifying (source: [1]): Tidal force = GMm((𝑟2−𝑟1)(𝑟2+𝑟1)/(𝑟1²𝑟2²)) G = 6.67*10^-11 m = 0.05g The mass of a water droplet is about .05 grams. M = 7.35*10²² kg (mass of moon) r = 356516600 (distance center of moon and center of earth — radius of earth = 356523000 m — 6400 m) Let's say the maximum height of a water droplet is 2 cm, that is, .02 meters. r1 = r - 0.02 r2 = r TF = GMm(r - (r - 0.02) / ((r - 0.02)² * r²) TF = GMm(r - r + 0.02) / ((r - 0.02)² * r²) // expand the negative TF = GM *0.05 * (0.02) / ((r - 0.02)² * r²) // reduce, subsitute TF = GM *0.05 * 0.02 / ((r - 0.02)² * r²) // reduce, subsitute TF = GM * .001/ ((r - 0.02)² * r²) // multiply TF = GM * .001/ ((0.0004 - 0.04 r + 1 r^2) * r²) // expand exponent TF = GM * .001/ (0.0004 r^2 - 0.04 r^3 + r^4) // multiply TF = 6.67*10^-11 * M * .001/ 0.0004 r^2 - 0.04 r^3 + r^4) // substitute G TF = 6.67*10^-11 * 7.35*10^22 * .001/ (0.0004 r^2 - 0.04 r^3 + r^4) // substitute M TF = 6.67*10^-11 * 7.35*10^22 * .001/ (0.0004 356516600^2 - 0.04 356516600^3 + 356516600^4) // substitute r TF = 3.0345489577327 × 10^-25 // plug it in wolfram alpha A 100 kg object whose center is at a distance of 10m from the closest end of a human head, assuming a head is of 5 kg and 20 cm in width/height has 1.3*10^-11 N of tidal force, meaning that the head experiences 42,839,974,510,454 times more tidal force.
>>657082 aw shit. Just noticed my math's wrong. Well, the point was better explained by others anyways. Here's the source btw, https://medium.com/physics-simplified/using-gravitational-law-to-verify-proclaimed-effects-of-moons-gravitation-on-humans-mental-health-459dfc7b7493
>>656976 >LTV is literally the only general theory of prices left. Are you sure about that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall#Transformation_problem >Austrian econ doesn't have one. Neo-classicals gave up after general equilibrium models broke down under mathematical instability. Source? >what can the individual capitalist control to expand his profit assuming he is buying all his inputs at the going market price. The thing is, a capitalist cannot treat workers however he wants without affecting the price. Workers will demand more pay for worse work, unless they are literally starving to death, in which case they will subjectively prefer wage slavery to death. Many would still choose death over "16 tons and what do you get". >It's quite simple, he can increase the intensity of labor LTV has a concept of "harder work" now? >by making people work harder or by increasing the length of the working day. <insert statistic here of people only getting 3 hours of productive work done in an 8 hour day Regardless this does not "prove" LTV against marginalism as both posit that increasing the supply of something (labor) will drop its price. >Equilibrium prices are an emergent pheonomon, that's literally what we're talking about and it's also what mainstream economics has made their object of study as well. Equilibrium prices are an emergent phenomenon, but ALL prices are not an emergent phenomenon. Which is why a "general economic theory" has to be able to explain toy mudpie examples where equilibriums don't exist.
>>657102 >le transformation problem in 2020
>>657082 >I can't personally speak about marginalism, I couldn't understand the quick skim of wikipedia. >because they have been indoctrinated with voodoo economics. >People come here, claim they have read Capital, and can't even acknowledge the refutation found in the first chapter Hmmm, ok.
Why even engage with this lolbert retard if he is going to ignore every source and use the same damn arguments every other lolbert uses expecting them to be some sort of epiphany. Even the wiki he linked shows doubts over the transformation problem even existing or even being an unsolvable problem.
>>657113 epic diss my dude
>>657120 >something cannot be an unsettled question, it must be demonstrably true or false ebin
>>657122 >>657125 You ran out of mises.org stinkpieces to copy and paste so you try to throw shit at the wall and hope it sticks without even understanding a single thing you talk about, like claiming Marx is entirely distinct from classical economics
>>657102 >LTV has a concept of "harder work" now? You absolute fucking retard.
>>657102 >transformation problem Classical Econophysics has dealt with this problem quite effectively. The transformation problem arrose because Marx believed that the prices of production theory of price, which was supposedly more concrete, demanded an equal rate of profit across industries. Turns out, profit rates correlate to capital intensity, just like the unadjusted LTV would suggest. >Source? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_equilibrium_theory#Unresolved_problems_in_general_equilibrium There is no dynamic, general equilibrium model which can relate to emperical reality. >Workers will demand more pay for worse work, unless they are literally starving to death, in which case they will subjectively prefer wage slavery to death. Economic development tends to hide the fact that average wages are always pushed to a cost of subsistence reproduction - that is the minimal cost of having a family and participating in the modern economy. The constant pressure of unemployment, the "reserve army of labor" means that wages will only rise above developmentally adjusted subsistence in rare boom years when the economy is overheating. >insert statistic here of people only getting 3 hours of productive work done in an 8 hour day This graph is the statistic you should be worried about. That workers only do a few hours of productive labor goes to show just how far capitalists will go to prevent the workday from shrinking. >Which is why a "general economic theory" has to be able to explain toy mudpie examples where equilibriums don't exist. Marx literally does though.
(61.53 KB 431x582 63129164.jpg)
>>657129 >You ran out of mises.org stinkpieces to copy and paste That was the other guy(s? there was another one that got banned). >like claiming Marx is entirely distinct from classical economics Never said that. >>657133 I misread that as "or", as though it was different from labor time.
>>657145 >I misread that as "or", as though it was different from labor time. No, wait, what the fuck, he literally said "he can increase the intensity of labor by making people work harder"! Explain this immediately.
>>657157 I don't know what's so difficult about this concept. The more commodities that a worker can produce in a given time, say a month, will depend on how hard they work and how many hours a day they work. The discipline that a capitalist can put on a worker is one of the forces which shapes the social average of labor time.
>>657141 >Economic development tends to hide the fact that average wages are always pushed to a cost of subsistence reproduction - that is the minimal cost of having a family and participating in the modern economy. I mean, this tendency is due to private property endlessly expanding and unchecked population growth. This does not describe all markets in the general case. >This graph is the statistic you should be worried about. That workers only do a few hours of productive labor goes to show just how far capitalists will go to prevent the workday from shrinking. My point being the workday can shrink drastically without reducing labor output because people are already worked past their maximum output anyways. >Marx literally does though. If he did, it wasn't presented in the thread.
>>657165 So labor value is NOT just labor time...? Because a capitalist is objectively making more sales, and thus profit, if he works people HARDER, not just LONGER. So, there's some OTHER quality to labor that is unaccounted for by just "hours worked"?
>>657091 Sure, but social systems =/= physics models. >>657118 I'm explaining LTV. I don't pretend to know shit I haven't read. I'm very much interested in at least learning neoclassical econ. I even attended a libertarian org, but they were unironically retarded and illiterate. I had to ask a libertarian friend instead to recommend books. He recommended Hayek, I planned to read that next. Reading econ is my hobby. I'm a software engineer by trade. I'm looking to learn interesting and useful things. I started getting into mises, but miss me with that praxeology shit. More recently I tried to get into behavioral econ, miss me with that pseudo-scientific pop sci shit. I also read philosophy in general, fiction, and software engineering stuff. Plus, I have an active social life. I can't read everything.
>>657185 Harder work is automatically faster work. >Premise: Machines of similar quality If I make my workers produce 8 machines in a 8h workday instead of just 4 machines in a 8h workday as my competitor does, my wagiecucks worked twice as fast. If we assume the average is "6 machines in 8h", I will beat my competitor by making 8 machines for the "price" of 6 machines, while he only made 4 machines in the time he was expected to make 6. I can make a profit now. >Premise: Better machines If I push my workers to build 8 amazing machines in a workday rather than 8 mediocre ones as my competitor does, my wagecucks also worked faster, because my competitor might take 16h to make 8 machines with my superior quality, whereas I can knock out my superior quality goods fsster. Keep in mind that the value mostly correlates with price but isn't the same, because price can be distorted by market mechanisms. But generally speaking this is how industrial firms can knock each other out. If I make 5 sneakers at home and a factory can make 500 similar ones in the same time, assuming demand is higher than supply, who do you think can make more profit, who do you think loses in the long run?
>>657171 >This does not describe all markets in the general case. If there is no economic development, average wages will not rise above subsistence. The Malthusian wage trap is a well accepted part of classical econ. >My point being the workday can shrink drastically without reducing labor output because people are already worked past their maximum output anyways. Ah, but here is the rub. Given that the amount of wages required to reproduce the workers is already fixed, there's no point to decrease the hours. Decreasing the hours will not decrease the costs, because if workers were not able to eek out an existence with the job they would simply quit. Not to mention, overhead costs per head encourage employers to cut costs by cutting the number of employees rather than the number of hours. >If he did, it wasn't presented in the thread. Let me put it this way, because we're talking about commodities, we're talking about goods on competitive markets. If one firm takes far longer to produce the same amount of mud, they will quickly be crowded out of the market and fail. If firm 1 with 100 capital cost, 100 labor cost produces 300 mud pies a day at a cost of 1 dollar, they make a 100 dollar profit. If firm 2 with the same cost only produces 200 a day, they will make zero profit. >>657185 From the standpoint of an individual commodity, there is no difference between labor time and labor intensity - working harder just means producing more commodities per hour. This all started with discussion about LTV as the foundational atom of economics. Whay you have to keep in mind is that it is the capitalist's drive to increase labor productivity, decreasing labor time to its minimum, which allows us to gauge prices by the relative amount of labor involved. It's a similair kind of roundaboutness as Ricardo's theory of rent, where the least fertile field allows us to determine the amount of rent.
>>657288 *decreasing labor time to its minimum relative to commodities produced.
>>657243 >If I make my workers produce 8 machines in a 8h workday instead of just 4 machines in a 8h workday as my competitor does, my wagiecucks worked twice as fast. If we assume the average is "6 machines in 8h", I will beat my competitor by making 8 machines for the "price" of 6 machines, while he only made 4 machines in the time he was expected to make 6. I can make a profit now. What do you mean by "faster"? Guy making machines 8 machines in 8 hours vs guy making 4 machines in 8 hours, they're both working 8 hours. How is this not a counterexample to labor time being value? Because the guy who makes 4 machines is driven out of business? OK? But that was only possible because labor time value theory was violated in the first place. Someone produced MORE of what people wanted to buy in 8 hours than someone else. This whole argument is like this: You're like: "temperature determines particle momentum" and i'm like: "temperature is a measure the average momentum of a group of particles". And then I point at the particle, and I'm like, "what's its momentum?" and you start sweating, because your theory predicts a constant momentum, but under a microscope, it's constantly slowing down and speeding up. Whereas I'm like, "the particle is going 19km/s, now 5km/s, now 12km/s..." And you will be able to keep going, "see! the particle is going the average velocity again! I told you the temperature theory of particle momentum is correct!" forever because it will constantly be fluctuating forever, even though you will never be able to explain what the fuck causes these fluctuations, and the fluctuations even existing contradicts your assertion that the average determines the individual cases and not the reverse. Whereas I'm like "it hit X massed particle with Y momentum, so now it has XY/Z momentum in the opposite direction". Or I ask you what temperature a single particle in a vacuum has, and you're not sure what it means for a particle to have a temperature, or how to measure it, so you write it off as being a mudpie and not counting as physics.
>>657547 Is your question why do prices exist? Or what is it precisely? Do you not understand the LTV? Do you think it is wrong? I've already explained how the "determination" of prices worked in my long post here >>656650 >But that was only possible because labor time value theory was violated in the first place. No. You can't "violate" the LTV. Reminder that Adam Smith and David Ricardo, among other important economists believed in a LTV, although in much cruder forms. Marx's LTV is logical conclusions of the previous flawed forms. If you think they dedicated their lives to the research of economics, working on the shoulders of giants, but some rando on the internet will BTFO them with REASON and LOGIC, you are probably too arrogant for your own good. Following the temperature analogy, which is a physics model and not a social mechanics model, but whatever... I am trying to tell you why and how the individual velocities oscillate around a predictable velocity. You are saying "but what if there were one particle who's velocity is 900 km/hr". To which we're responding "yes, it's possible, but it's highly fantastical/improbable. And even then, it doesn't trump the theory that temperature is a good indicator of expected particle velocity". To which you respond, "if your theory can't explain why this particle is going at 900 km/hr, then it is useless and must be discarded". The analogy being that price is velocity, temperature is value, and the particle in motion is the commodity. Then you give the example of the single particle in a vacuum. You ask, what is the temperature of a single particle in a vacuum?. This doesn't make sense, nor is it useful, since temperature is defined as part of a system, of particles in relation to each other (without getting into quantum shit). The Boltzmann distribution is no longer a useful model. It doesn't mean that the Boltzmann distribution is now cancelled and should be ostracized. You simply need to know for what your model is useful and use it appropriately. In our topic at hand, I believe we have explained why the model doesn't apply to individual prices. It would help a lot if you read the first chapter of Capital, it explains it much better than I can, and in much more detail. I'll try to explain anyways... This doesn't work because exchange value is measured in relation to other commodities, just as temperature is defined in the relation of particles as a whole. So, my 8 hours worth of corn are equivalent to your 8 hours worth of fish. This "8 hours worth of fish" presupposes that fish is something that is frequently sold and it's worth is known. This doesn't mean it took me 8 hours to harvest corn, or it took you 8 hours to fish. For all it matters, I could've found 8 hours worth of corn on the ground, and exchanged it for 8 hours worth of fish. Going back to the analogy, the commodities cannot have this "hourly value" if they are not already in a relation with all commodities in the market, just as particles in a system cannot have temperature, unless they are in a relation with all particles in it. The analogy is not perfect, of course. If I grab a liter of gas, and ask "how much energy is here" I could use the temperature to give a rough estimate of how much energy is in that enclosure, I do not need to know all the individual particle speeds. Similarly, 8 hours worth of corn, when taking into consideration the whole market, will have a rough standard exchange rate. Some might exchange corn very expensively, some very cheaply, but when taken as a whole and abstracted, a "commodity value" is established, socially. If there's a surge in demand for whatever reason, perhaps corn becomes more valuable. In that case, the price could be above the "man hour value" it had originally. Here, the corn producer would be getting a lot of profit. That is fine, that does not break the LTV. This is simple bartering. When you get to capitalist commodity production, things start to get more stable. For example, the price of cereal at the supermarket is generally stable all year long. Or for example, when products ran out at the supermarket, most products retained their prices, even when they could have gouged them. Price gouging is harder in the capitalist generalized commodity production. Due to competition, you'd probably need capitalist collusion, which is real and does happen, despite being illegal. Or you'd need monopoly protection, such as patents, land, property rights, industry secrets, etc. Otherwise, it can be very hard to keep prices gouged. Do note that this is a simplification. Not all man-hours are measured equally by society. You have to understand the basic model first before you start tacking on complexity. It's nice that people are explaining shit with machines and shit, but I personally think it's counter productive, because you haven't understood the basic model yet and more complexity will not help your understanding. Read my post that tries to explain it with prices instead of labor hours. Hopefully it will give the idea of where this is all coming from. As long as you're willing to learn/teach in good faith, I'm willing to discuss. So feel free to ask any question of something you didn't understand, or any concept that is still unclear.
>>657547 A: 8/8 = 1 B: 8/4 = 2 Capitalist A only takes 1h to produce 1 machine, capitalist B takes 2h to produce 1 machine. Capitalist A made his wagecucks work harder = Capitalist A made his wagecucks work faster. It's the time for one commodity, not the total actual physical time in a day. You should read An Introduction to Marxist Economics by Ernest Mandel to grasp the Marxian LTV first before discussing any details.
>>657102 >>It's quite simple, he can increase the intensity of labor >LTV has a concept of "harder work" now? <The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. That's the comment by someone widely regarded as one of the greatest Marxists, by the name of Karl Marx, and it was written in Capital and now guess the chapter. Yes, it* is the first**.
>>657141 >Turns out, profit rates correlate to capital intensity, just like the unadjusted LTV would suggest. That leads to the question how it comes that investments are made into dead-labor-intensive projects all the time. I'm sure patent monopolies and funding by the state play a huge rule here. But maybe there is also something else going on that is more automatic than this deliberate intervention, something you can rely on happening to stabilize capitalism because it arises within the system and is not so dependent on the ruling class having attained some level of foresight and deliberate coordination. If the organic composition of capital were the same everywhere, there would be no puzzle. Consider capitalists can have shares in more than one particular company and a company can do more than one particular thing. Maybe there is at least some mild systematic pressure to bundle ownership in a way that the capital intensity when comparing bundle to bundle is somewhat equalized?
>>657547 >What do you mean by "faster"? Speed as in commmodities per hour see >>657999 (nice get) >But that was only possible because labor time value theory was violated in the first place. Someone produced MORE of what people wanted to buy in 8 hours than someone else. If Firm 1 produced 100 and firm 2 produced 50 at the same conditions we talked about earlier, both would fail. You cannot produce below cost in the long term, regardless how desired the products are. Also >labor time value theory was violated I don't think you quite grasp that LTV presumes a distribution of different amounts of time for a particular commodity, and that the value, SNLT is determined by the average. You're newtownian view of physics here is a bad analogy. A better one would be thermodynamics and maxwell and boltzman's thermodynamic equations. It is practically impossible to know the energy of every particle in a gas, fortunately we do not need to. The probability distributions give us all the information we need to give an accurate estimation of the aggregate momentum (pressure) of a gass. Think about Boltzman's constant and distribution, which is one of the fundamental constants of the universe by the way. The question we are asking isn't, "why does widget firm a have higher prices than widget firm b", this can easily be dealt with by a probability distribution which assumes a wide variety of prices for a given product caused by many random variables. Rather, the question we're interested in is "why do widgets cost more than chairs". These are the differences we find at equilibrium. If we want to go to the microscopic level, LTV holds even more, just as Smith talked about. The cost of everything is the toil and trouble required to acquire it. If you want to exclude all other social relations besides the act of exchange, the only material thing which is added is the seller's labor. Marginalism too must work in the aggregate, it cannot explain a price or barter without anything to compare it to. All that you'd be left with are axiomatic explinations, whether about labor or about utility. Beyond the axioms, in the realm of mathematical/emperical rigor, there is only one theory which can accurately explain equilibrium prices and that's LTV.
>>658103 I think a lot of it has to do with the technical specifics of each industry. How easy something is to automate depends on the task.
>>658137 >>658103 Also, fixed asset intensity has a lot less to do with investor money than you might think, especially as the last ten years have shown. Firms can just take investor cash and do whatever, or allow it to inflate stock prices rather than invest in machinery. Lower competition will often mean less capital investment.
>>657999 That makes no fucking sense. The LTV posits a bijection of the value of the labor (8 hours) and the value of the products (the 8 hours put into the 4 machines). To argue otherwise would be to require some means by which 8 machines is MORE PREFERABLE to consumers than 4 machines, which is incoherent if you just go "labor time is all value". So this theory is back to answering no questions.
>>659462 >The LTV posits a bijection of the value of the labor (8 hours) and the value of the products (the 8 hours put into the 4 machines). the ltv does not posit that two commodities can't have the same value.
>>657695 >If you think they dedicated their lives to the research of economics, working on the shoulders of giants, but some rando on the internet will BTFO them with REASON and LOGIC, you are probably too arrogant for your own good. Samuel Hanhemann dedicated his life to homeopathy. Not an argument. >If there's a surge in demand for whatever reason, perhaps corn becomes more valuable. In that case, the price could be above the "man hour value" it had originally. Here, the corn producer would be getting a lot of profit. That is fine, that does not break the LTV. This is simple bartering. Demand spikes suddenly cause barter economies? So when COVID masks were nowhere to be found in the US, you think that caused a bartering economy to appear in the center of the most thoroughly marketized economy in human history?
>>659488 I'm not sure how my statement requires the belief that two commodities can't have the same value.
>>659496 >bijection
>>659462 You are honestly so fucking autistic that I can't explain you everything. 8 machines are better than 4 because you can earn more money selling 8 than selling 4. What the fuck is your problem?
>>659504 bijection, one-to-one correspondence. 8 hours of work - > 4 machines, 2 hours each 4 machines, 2 hours each - > 8 hours All 4 machines have the same "value" as in labor content >>659507 >LTV causes prices >NO NO WAIT LTV IS CAUSED BY PRICES
>>659511 You are either being obtuse to troll or a genuinely a diagnosed low functioning autist.
>>659516 stay mad
>>659528 Learn what exchange value means first. You don't even understand basic shit explained in the first chapter of Das Kapital. Read a fucking book you smoothbrain.
>>659494 >Samuel Hanhemann dedicated his life to homeopathy. Not an argument. The point isn't that "smart people believed this so it's correct," it's that "smart people believed this so the objection you came up with five minutes' reflection probably isn't as clever as you imagine it to be." Smart people devoting their lives to homeopathy doesn't mean homeopathy works, but it does mean a simple incredulous statement like "how could giving someone a SMALL amount of something make them powerful against a BIG thing" isn't really helpful, especially since that would end up disproving vaccination or hormesis along the way.
>>659511 >LTV causes prices Didn't you assert this? Most anons stated that prices relate to and correlate with value.
>>659462 >To argue otherwise would be to require some means by which 8 machines is MORE PREFERABLE to consumers than 4 machines Huh? The 8 machines aren't preferable to the consumer, they are preferable to the capitalist who sells them. Are you ok?
>>659462 LTV posits no such bijection. I don't think you quite understand this example. LTV on the microscale is about how Capitalists maximize output relative to labor, it explains which firms are successful. From there, it explains equilibrium prices. The 8 machines actually have a lower level of labor time than the 4. Each one has a lower cost associated with it than the less efficient producer. The increased exploitation has increaased surplus value for this particular capitalist. The immediate effect on price is perfectly explained by supply and demand, which Marx says just as well. However, what we're interested in is the price when supply has adjusted for demand, the equilibrium price. >>LTV causes prices LTV determines equilibrium prices. That we can measure the equilibrium by taking the long run average of prices doesn't explain why the equilibrium price for a TV is 300 dollars and a bottle of water is 1.50. Neo-classical econ is guilty of a huge exercise in classical logic here by simply aggregating supply and demand curves to explain equilibrium price. The supply and demand curves, after all, are determined by firms and buyers reactions to prices. They are therefore explaining prices with prices, offering no real explination of what determines equilbrium.
>>659511 >>>NO NO WAIT LTV IS CAUSED BY PRICES another important detail here: we're not simply talking about pricess. We're talking about exchange ratios between goods. It doesn't matter that a tv is worth 300 dollars, that's meaningless. What matters is that a tv is worth as much as 200 water bottles. As a matter of econometrics, we calculate this on the level of whole industries. Why is the car industry worth x amount vs y amount for furniture
>>659494 >>This is simple bartering. I was saying that my example was situated in a simple barter economy as the dominant mode of production. No comment on the rest? I'm convinced you do not want to learn, you want to nitpick and smugly claim victory. Unless you understand the LTV, all your arguments against it are irrelevant. You are arguing against a straw man. If you're not going to read the first chapter of Capital, then at least read the wikipedia on the subject!
>>659690 We are talking about 2 firms, one that makes 4 machines per 8 hours and one that makes 8 machines per 8 hours. What is preferable about buying 8 machines worth 8 hours of work, versus 4 machines worth 8 hours of work?
>>660810 *2 firms that SELL 4 machines and 8 machines, since you seem to think all this is happening within the companies
>>659715 >Neo-classical econ is guilty of a huge exercise in classical logic here by simply aggregating supply and demand curves to explain equilibrium price. The supply and demand curves, after all, are determined by firms and buyers reactions to prices. They are therefore explaining prices with prices, offering no real explination of what determines equilbrium. If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, every firm and buyer is imagined to have an arbitrary set of reactions to an infinite range of possible prices, getting more and more hesitant until the price crosses the line of indifference, at which point the transaction doesn't happen. This is different from LTV which seems to attempt to explain actually real prices in terms of actually real prices.
(517.83 KB 656x435 2ba.png)
So I read the first chapter of Capital. >Introduces the same couple dozen blanket definitions as ITT >Introduces the same laundry list of exceptions as ITT to those definitions so that they don't seem as immediately nonsensical >spends 10,000 words rephrasing "10 yards of linen is worth 1 coat" over and over again >claims REPEATEDLY that exchange value is precisely equal to labor value >goes to great lengths to stress that labor value is not merely a quantitative comparison between commodities, but actually a physically real substance imbibed in the commodity, like the transubstantiation of the eucharist Holy shit. Is this what people have been talking about so much? This shit is a religion.
(27.70 KB 478x368 circular prices logic.jpg)
>>660817 >to explain actually real prices in terms of actually real prices. that's circular logic
>>660825 >This shit is a religion. LTV is empirically verified. You can't fault Marx for not knowing scientific notation that wasn't yet invented.
>>660848 Not the other moron, but thanks this pdf looks awesome
>>660825 >So I've spent twenty years of my life arguing for thousands of hours against a book I haven't read. >Now I'm trying for the first time to read the first chapter (turned out my friends who are agreeing with me haven't read it either). >It says what people defending that book have been telling me when I argued with them. >Wow, this is what religious extremists really are like. ?
>>660817 LTV also uses supply and demand to explain short prices, however, supply and demand cant on it's own explain the differences once supply has moved to meet demand. The process you just described is the short term equilibrium. Neoclassical econ has marginal productivity theory and general equilibrium to explain prices when supply can move to meet demand. LTV doesnt explain prices via prices, it explains average prices using average labor time. LTV DOESNT MEAN SHORT TERM PRICES BETWEEN FIRMS ARE DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO LABOR VALUES, JUST THAT CAPITALIST ACTION ON THE MICRO SCALE IS TOWARDS MAXIMIZING LABOR OUTPUT.
>>660825 >>goes to great lengths to stress that labor value is not merely a quantitative comparison between commodities, but actually a physically real substance imbibed in the commodity, like the transubstantiation of the eucharist This is literally the opposite of what he says lol. Pic related. Exchange value is equal to labor value because it is the long run average exchange ratio, not simply transactions price.
>>660825 >>goes to great lengths to stress that labor value is not merely a quantitative comparison between commodities, but actually a physically real substance imbibed in the commodity, like the transubstantiation of the eucharist He literally says the opposite you fucking smoothbrained retard. Either look up commodity fetishism or go hang yourself. < As against this, the commodity-form, and the value-relation of the products of labour within which it appears, have absolutely no connection with the physical nature of the commodity and the material relations arising out of this.
>>660854 >So I've spent twenty years of my life arguing for thousands of hours against a book I haven't read. who the fuck did this
>>660854 >>It says what people defending that book have been telling me when I argued with them. >Wow, this is what religious extremists really are like. I was referring more to the fucking supernatural shit.
>>660838 correct
>>660937 >For instance, 40 yards of linen are worth – what? 2 coats. Because the commodity coat here plays the part of equivalent, because the use-value coat, as opposed to the linen, figures as an embodiment of value, therefore a definite number of coats suffices to express the definite quantity of value in the linen. Two coats may therefore express the quantity of value of 40 yards of linen, but they can never express the quantity of their own value. A superficial observation of this fact, namely, that in the equation of value, the equivalent figures exclusively as a simple quantity of some article, of some use value, has misled Bailey, as also many others, both before and after him, into seeing, in the expression of value, merely a quantitative relation. The truth being, that when a commodity acts as equivalent, no quantitative determination of its value is expressed. >There is, however, something else required beyond the expression of the specific character of the labour of which the value of the linen consists. Human labour power in motion, or human labour, creates value, but is not itself value. It becomes value only in its congealed state, when embodied in the form of some object. In order to express the value of the linen as a congelation of human labour, that value must be expressed as having objective existence, as being a something materially different from the linen itself, and yet a something common to the linen and all other commodities. The problem is already solved.
(109.98 KB 937x488 capital marx quantitatively2.png)
(65.28 KB 928x306 capital marx quantitatively.png)
>>663105 Marx makes it clear that abstract human labor, which makes commodities comparable to each other, is a social relationship, specific to the historical epoch of capitalism. It is not some metaphysical relationship, or a mystical embodiment. Where there is mysticism, it is the extent to which the market and capitalists treat value very much like a physical embodiment - as a purely quantitative relationship that exists in nature. As you can see in these quotes that provide context to those you've cited, Marx is saying the the bourgois political economists are guilty of exactly what you're accusing him of, treating commodities as embodying value in a physical manner

Delete
Report

no cookies?