You have five seconds to provide an argument against the labor theory of value

Andrew Parker
Andrew Parker

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

Attached: marx.png (1.61 MB, 1920x916)

All urls found in this thread:

users.wfu.edu/cottrell/eea97.pdf
investopedia.com/terms/l/labor-theory-of-value.asp
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis
econlib.org/library/Enc/Marxism.html
courses.vcu.edu/PHY-rhg/astron/html/mod/006/index.html
marxists.catbull.com/archive/marx/works/1867/letters/67_04_30.htm
marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm

Leo Long
Leo Long

It doesn't work retarded idealist.
Be more pragmatic.

Luis Cruz
Luis Cruz

True communism has never existed nor can it exist in reality kys gay boy

Jacob Hughes
Jacob Hughes

general human inefficiency at controlling and redistribution

Wyatt Sanders
Wyatt Sanders

I recommend reading Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism As the Conflict Between Labor and Usury by E Michael Jones to understand this topic better

Colton Adams
Colton Adams

Nietzsche

“Socialism ― or the tyranny of the meanest and the most brainless, ―that is to say, the superficial, the envious, and the mummers, brought to its zenith, ―is, as a matter of fact, the logical conclusion of “modern ideas” and their latent anarchy: but in the genial atmosphere of democratic well-being the capacity for forming resolutions or even for coming to an end at all, is paralysed. Men follow―but no longer their reason. That is why socialism is on the whole a hopelessly bitter affair: and there is nothing more amusing than to observe the discord between the poisonous and desperate faces of present-day socialists―and what wretched and nonsensical feelings does not their style reveal to us!”

Attached: 5FF2FCD8-DFE6-418A-9E1C-773F50EC03AF.jpg (23 KB, 320x244)

Justin Jackson
Justin Jackson

Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism As the Conflict Between Labor and Usury
what doesn't work? the labor theory of value isn't a prescriptive theory. do you mean "it's not accurate"?
see above
what does that have to do with the LTV, a theory of capitalism?
see above

Xavier Perez
Xavier Perez

Theft is immoral.

James Long
James Long

You can work if I kill you. There.

Ryan Barnes
Ryan Barnes

What’s the labor theory of value again?

John Adams
John Adams

Can't

Henry Gonzalez
Henry Gonzalez

Attached: c7d19e2baaf7b62cdda1eedbaf8aa43c.jpg (86 KB, 1024x768)

Charles Morris
Charles Morris

fitting, since the quack probably only took 5 seconds to come up with the theory itself.

Landon Gonzalez
Landon Gonzalez

Supply and Demand

OH LOOK

Your entire retarded theory is debunked in 3 words.
Retarded child OP.

Attached: News.jpg (275 KB, 699x931)

Hudson Hall
Hudson Hall

you have computers there?

Elijah Miller
Elijah Miller

Why are you okay with capitalists stealing your surplus labor value then?

Daniel Adams
Daniel Adams

Left side of the equation ALWAYS equals the right.Mathematics is the most truthful philosophy in universe

Attached: Quotation-Karl-Marx-Accumulation-of-wealth-at-one-pole-is-at-the-same-81-33-27.jpg (121 KB, 1200x640)

Lucas Campbell
Lucas Campbell

Normies thinking it's valuable will add infinitly more cash value than any amount of fiddling.

Brayden Long
Brayden Long

Because it's not mine. I didn't pay for the very expensive means of production and I don't want any random asshole to have the ability to attain their own means of production. We'd go bankrupt.

Joshua Hughes
Joshua Hughes

Private property rights

Jordan Brooks
Jordan Brooks

And people who never actually read karl marx,he was quite precise and used math to prove his points at least in Capital

Austin Evans
Austin Evans

what does that have to do with the LTV?
Marx's LTV is a theory that in capitalist economies, value is determined by the average amount of unskilled labor that it takes to reproduce a commodity at a given time and place.
not an argument.
how is Marx's LTV at odds with supply and demand? he explicitly recognizes it.
are you talking about market price? that's not what Marx means by value.

Ian Cruz
Ian Cruz

You have five seconds
Fuck you faggot

Jonathan Reed
Jonathan Reed

I've yet to see OP refute this, looks like you beat him. Nice digs btw.

Jeremiah Ward
Jeremiah Ward

It was crafted by a Jew and is therefore a deceptive lie for the purpose of world-domination

Nicholas Barnes
Nicholas Barnes

Oh yes I remember. It’s the theory that the value of an object is directly determined by how much labor it took to produce. Seems like a self-refuting concept, I’m not sure how anyone could give it any credence

Tyler Torres
Tyler Torres

That's just retarded, it doesn't take into account a multitude of things. How did the raw materials get there? Why is there value in things beyond face value? How do you determine how much value each thing has if you toss out supply and demand? How do you forecast for that kind of value? How do you prevent scarcity because of it?

Alexander Hughes
Alexander Hughes

And just mere ignorance of faulty capitalist system will led to same mistakes again,because the point Marx was trying to make is that capitalist IS NOT EVIL OR BAD,but that DEVELOPED capitalism and LATE STAGE is.Capitalism has a function to create value,while at the same time creating missery for workers,but once value is created it then transforms into a monopoly which whe are living in today.So capitalism is a PHASE that LEADS to EITHER monopoly(of private controlled capitalists) or SOCIALISM(government regulates ).So you NEED capitalism to create iphones,pc,airplanes etc. all products that we have but once we have them like today,we dont need it anymore.We simply DONT NEED TO CREATE PROFIT FOR SMALL AMOUNT OF PEOPLE.its really simple once you understand it

Adam Garcia
Adam Garcia

Nah he answered "see above" without an actual response being above. BTFO!

Benjamin Wright
Benjamin Wright

We should enjoy tecnhology that we have today,not create profits for Jeff Bezos or other maniacs at the top

Cooper Ramirez
Cooper Ramirez

I already responded to it.
how is it self-refuting?
again, what that guy said doesn't address the theory. do you think the LTV is a prescriptive theory of how things should be distributed?

Jeremiah Ortiz
Jeremiah Ortiz

me and retard neighbor have separate plots of land, several acres
I build a farm, make tools and kindling with the available lumber but manage it intelligently to make sure it remains a renewable resource, bread the available livestock and maintain or even increase their population.
retarded neighbor burns all his lumber, kills all the livestock and plants nothing for the next season
he starves to death while I prosper
somehow my fault

Michael Martin
Michael Martin

Then go stop everyone from voluntarily buying shit off Amazon.

Levi King
Levi King

Yeah, OP responded to it, but he didn't refute it.

Dylan Butler
Dylan Butler

That it isn't a real thing.

Marx btfo /thread

Zachary Sanders
Zachary Sanders

mathematics is one thing. People actually behaving like equations and falling under the 'perfect logic of accurate division' category is another.
I literally forgot about this thread for a handful of minutes

Nolan Lee
Nolan Lee

For instance if I spent a year building a road in the middle of nowhere, it would not have the same value as a road built in a populated area.

Gavin Thomas
Gavin Thomas

It's about labor and the guy pointed out how human labor has tons of inefficiencies. You did not address that and pretend it's irrelevant.

Robert Powell
Robert Powell

His statement is so ignorant because it assumes that wealth isn’t created. It assumes wealth merely exists in a finite amount and some people have it and some people don’t. It’s just not true. Wealth is literally created through work, production, and trade.

Brandon Phillips
Brandon Phillips

Physical labor = Value
Mental labor != Value
Farmers and physicists die in the Gulag together

Attached: jhugvfcertgyhj.jpg (21 KB, 314x499)

Dominic Ramirez
Dominic Ramirez

land isn't a freely reproducible good. the theory doesn't purport to explain those types of commodities.
once again, that guy's objection doesn't address anything in the theory.
how do you mean?
how is the fact that labor has inefficiencies a criticism of the theory? does the theory state otherwise?

Julian Diaz
Julian Diaz

thank you for your response, I am yet to be convinced that it had any value. You can probably make a functional equation that will count how much produce is needed for at least 100M people, and then round it up for a sake of margine, then have this equation leave about 15-20M people die of starvation due to said roundup and common human imperfection and again, general inefficiency. My point stands still

Nolan Adams
Nolan Adams

It doesn't work.

Henry Brown
Henry Brown

Sounds to me like you don't even understand the theory yourself, then, or what a theory is and what purpose it serves in economics.

Oliver Bailey
Oliver Bailey

Stolen land that's enforced through violence? Or means of production that's purchased by stolen labor value? It's just another form of taxation.

Gavin Gutierrez
Gavin Gutierrez

FPBP

Ayden Peterson
Ayden Peterson

Labour Theory of Value (LTV):

Non arguments:

If I dig a hole in my backyard and then fill it in I used labor but made no value! Commies BTFO!

Marx clarified (unlike adam smith) that only socially necessary labor (labor used to produce a commodity with use value) creates value. This is also the case if you spend 1000 years making a bed.

Nature can create value as well. If an apple falls from a tree then value is created without labor

Marx also noted nature could create value.

if labor determines price why is coca cola cheaper than bottled water?

Labor doesn't determine price. It determines value (not exchange value or use value) and correlates with the equilibrium price.

Machines cannot create value. If I make a machine that makes diamonds out of thin air then the value of a diamond falls below that of bricks now that they can be aquired with no work what so ever. Price might not fall because you can still manipulate supply and demand but value certainly does.

Some definitions.

Use value = How useful an object is.
Exchange value = Market value of a commodity. Different from use value. You can sell a beanie baby for 200$ but it is almost completely useless.
Value = the amount of congealed labor withing a commodity.

Some evidence of the LTV
users.wfu.edu/cottrell/eea97.pdf

Jose Young
Jose Young

The theory is absolutely retarded in general anyways. How do you account for inefficiencies into worth? Just because you produce a fuckload of stuff doesn't mean people will want it either. What is the worth of something that no one wants?

Evan Wright
Evan Wright

I wasn’t talking about land I was talking about a road. Similarly, if I spend a year making medicine to treat polio it’s won’t have the same value as if I spent a year making medicine for allergies or diabetes.

Samuel Myers
Samuel Myers

Kek post picture of communist santa ask /pol to argue against him. Fuck off faggot.

Attached: 1544298119867.jpg (102 KB, 333x493)

Jordan Gomez
Jordan Gomez

kuwait
send me a copy that book is like $100 usd I can't eat beans for a good 3 months if I buy it

Xavier Myers
Xavier Myers

Meanwhile, mental labor in those not part of the 'party' is without value.

Communism requires the reduction of population to operate in the black, and thusly mass arrests, forced labor, and murder.

How many more millions need to be murdered until it was real Communism? If the Russians did not reach that level after 65,000,000, it will surely never happen.

Attached: jhtgfdsfghj.png (353 KB, 898x720)

Luke Campbell
Luke Campbell

More of a question, but hypothetically if something like a desk was built both by a skilled and unskilled worker in the same amount of time, how would those items be of equal value when one would be of superior quality

Colton Williams
Colton Williams

Value of output is always unknown until it is paid for.

Jonathan Martinez
Jonathan Martinez

Uh?
...Jews?

Ian Rogers
Ian Rogers

Higher quality isn't necessary because it is decedent. Producing at that level, under Communism, is a waste of value.

Attached: jhgfdgfghjk.jpg (182 KB, 800x800)

John Brooks
John Brooks

I'm sorry - I don't see anything here that addresses the theory. the theory doesn't prescribe a method of distribution.
see what have I said about the theory that's inaccurate?
How do you account for inefficiencies into worth?
the LTV doesn't pres.
cribe how much things should be worth
Just because you produce a fuckload of stuff doesn't mean people will want it either
does Marx say otherwise? the theory isn't about why people desire things.
where do you think roads are built?
the value of a desk isn't determined by the specific labour that went into each specific desk, but rather the socially necessary amount of labor time (meaning, the average amount of time it took an average worker to produce a desk).

Austin Stewart
Austin Stewart

sounds like you're equivocating on value. value is distinguished from market price in the LTV.

Leo Reyes
Leo Reyes

There should be a distinction between labour quality and effort. By nationalising the industries and organising trade unions and even syndicates you achieve what Marx wanted to achieve but without the unnecessary extra steps that are proven to fail time and time again, usually by means of application.

Also his theory of labour works only in industry, and nowhere else because back then factories demanded work that didn't require much skill.
In every other job there is such skill required, furthermore we live in a Post-Industrial society of automation.

Finally i'd like to say that people act less as owners of money and more as channels of money since those with money rarely save it and usually spend it on goods and products that the poor provide.

Surely there must be regulations to keep capitalism from going absolutely rogue on the people and rotting their souls as is happening now, however the flip side poises a miserable reality and Marx isn't an aesthetically pleasing man in the slightest which reflects on his philosophy.

Ryan Stewart
Ryan Stewart

it took you more than 5 seconds to type this, therefore you have no argument

Isaac Nelson
Isaac Nelson

Translation: "Only I am smart and righteous enough to run a communist system properly without corruption and mass murder."

You are an especially deluded faggot.

Cameron Hernandez
Cameron Hernandez

You have no way of proving this.

Robert Lee
Robert Lee

it takes more than 5 seconds to read it

Chase Reyes
Chase Reyes

Higher quality isn't necessary because it is decedent
I meant more along the lines of the drawers open correctly, not wobbly, will last significantly longer than the lower quality one

Fair enough, that was always the one question I had about LTV. Still think commies are retarded, but at least it's a bit more thought out than the strawman of ltv I was conceptualizing

Connor Wright
Connor Wright

There should be a distinction between labour quality and effort. By nationalising the industries and organising trade unions and even syndicates you achieve what Marx wanted to achieve but without the unnecessary extra steps that are proven to fail time and time again, usually by means of application.
even if the alternative to capitalism isn't possible, how would that negate capitalism's unsustainability?
Also his theory of labour works only in industry, and nowhere else because back then factories demanded work that didn't require much skill. In every other job there is such skill required, furthermore we live in a Post-Industrial society of automation.
how does the existence of skilled labour and automation refute the theory? Marx's talks extensively about both.
Finally i'd like to say that people act less as owners of money and more as channels of money since those with money rarely save it and usually spend it on goods and products that the poor provide.
does the theory claim otherwise?

Brayden Nelson
Brayden Nelson

desu sorry, I was just bored, I shouldn't shit post
I want a copy of barren metal but it's 90 USD in Mexico
help an user out, does anyone ITT have a pdf to it (or might be willing to sell me a used copy for alot cheaper?)

Caleb Bennett
Caleb Bennett

/thread

Marxism never worked, it was just an elaborate excuse to establish Jewish rule in the Russian Empire.

Leo Cruz
Leo Cruz

A Mexican has problems reading, surprise surprise.

Robert Russell
Robert Russell

Bridges that don't collapse aren't necessary because they're decadent.

Landon Sanders
Landon Sanders

the LTV doesn't prescribe how much things should be worth
What the Hell does the W in it stand for then?

Joshua Johnson
Joshua Johnson

This lazy, workshy faggot's dumb theories led directly to the deaths of the bravest, most loyal, most patriotic men of Europe, tens of millions of Ukranians, Russians, Chinese, Cambodians... if you want an argument against his theories, start with the value of each life lost directly as a result of his stupid, divisive ideas.

Camden Martinez
Camden Martinez

If I stir mud for 10 days (adding a great deal of labor) it remains worthless.
If I find a diamond on the ground (the only labor is picking it up) it still has great value.

Attached: commie-book.jpg (29 KB, 402x600)

Jacob Ortiz
Jacob Ortiz

it doesn't make any sense
how does anyone know how much work it took to produce a good?
and what determines whether labor is 'socially necessary'?
this is a good thread because I still haven't been able to get anyone to explain this shit to me, despite asking all over the internet

Evan Bennett
Evan Bennett

Even if the method of distribution is neither prescribed not mentioned in the theory, it cannot be ignored due to the fact that it's inefficient in the making. Say the human labor is perfect and can produce anything for anyone as long as everyone takes part in the equation thanks to their free will - it would work to the point where everyone has everything that makes the labor itself useless, or unnecessary (i.e: complete automation of labor). Then, no object would have any value at all, leaving people to just either exist within their own flawless lives or make more of those automated labors at the expense of other people, turning the system completely over. In the actual reality, it would lock itself at the initial labor phase, where people are either to lazy to work their automated freedom or are forced to do so, making the system authoritarian, therefore corrupted.

Honestly it's 1.21AM for me right now and I'm having a terrible headache, don't think I'll be able to keep up longer and might just go get some rest

Aaron Wilson
Aaron Wilson

Diamonds aren't the best example, outside of cutting applications their only value is aesthetic. From a utilitarian standpoint they're way overvalued

Jace Myers
Jace Myers

To a starving person bread is more valuable than water. To a thirsty person water is more valuable than bread. The value of a good is different for different people. This is why voluntary trade is good.

Kevin Johnson
Kevin Johnson

It doesn’t account for modern marketing which inflate the cost of products. It doesn’t account for economic value placed on innovation. The theory of labor as described in das kapital has since been re-worked to address the speciality of equipment and technology.

Also I’m not even a trump supporter, just don’t think Marx was spot on in his theories(I assume you mean his version, not the classical liberal versions). Marx has some interesting musings and well thought out criticism of the system but ultimately I think it fails to see the whole picture.

Isaac Wilson
Isaac Wilson

even though I am barely awake the kek demon grants me another pair of digits itt.

I feel blessed

Andrew Taylor
Andrew Taylor

I should have kept mine this simple

Eli Smith
Eli Smith

this theory explains value except where it doesn’t explain value

Henry Garcia
Henry Garcia

I jerk off a lot
that requires work (calories expended)
You don't want to pay me to jerk off

qed: labor has no value

Brody Kelly
Brody Kelly

The value of a good to an individual is determined by the ends that good satisfy, not the labour used to produce the good. This is why water is more valuable than gold in a desert.

Aaron Miller
Aaron Miller

what does communism have to do with the LTV, a theory of capitalism?
the theory doesn't argue that all human expenditure creatures value. it attempts to explain what determines the value of a restricted set commodities. a mudpie isn't a commodity because it doesn't have a use-value.
how does anyone know how much work it took to produce a good?
we don't. value (as it's used in the LTV) is only theoretically quantifiable. it's postulated as a theoretical unobservable.
and what determines whether labor is 'socially necessary'?
socially necessary just means the average amount of time it takes to produce a commodity over the entire sector.

Ayden Gonzalez
Ayden Gonzalez

what's the labour theory of value and who does it help me kill?

Lincoln Turner
Lincoln Turner

Marx's LTV is a theory that in capitalist economies, value is determined by the average amount of unskilled labor that it takes to reproduce a commodity at a given time and place.
Well if that's actually the theory, it's wrong. Value is subjective and fluctuates. Scarcity, necessity and utility are more relevant to value than how much work it took to make a thing.
It takes a lot of work to tear down a house and pile the lumber in the middle of the street. But doing that destroys the value, not increase it.
And yeah yeah 'socially necessary labor.'
What makes it socially necessary? How is that determined?

Matthew Rogers
Matthew Rogers

it probably would help you kill some college students (by means of their act of suicide) during math exams

Jason Gonzalez
Jason Gonzalez

right. you're describing use-value (utility). the theory doesn't claim that that is determined by labor.
It doesn’t account for modern marketing which inflate the cost of products.
yes it does. many things besides labor can have an impact on market price. the theory doesn't deny this.

Josiah Brown
Josiah Brown

but it's true? In all price a component is the pay of the worker

Matthew Allen
Matthew Allen

The point
-------------------->
your head

Thus it ignores the concept of inherent value, begs the question of pricing, and has no method to account for distribution

Carson Mitchell
Carson Mitchell

imagine having no reading comprehension
Oh wait

Asher Davis
Asher Davis

there were no iphones in marx's day. What will capitalism produce in as many years in the future?

Aiden Cook
Aiden Cook

Q predicted this

Happy Hanukkah

Leo Rivera
Leo Rivera

value (as it's used in the LTV) is only theoretically quantifiable. it's postulated as a theoretical unobservable.

trying to assign a fictional value to a commodity when a direct value is given by price and the willingness of they buyer to pay for it

LTV sounds scientific to the superficial because it sounds complex, but in fact it's ad hoc and arbitrary as fuck, readily giving new names and definitions to all its "exceptions". Marginalism ftw.

Attached: 1489693843108.jpg (723 KB, 1183x761)

Leo Robinson
Leo Robinson

You are unemployed and the faggot that founded your cult never worked in his life either.

Nathan Rodriguez
Nathan Rodriguez

a certain method of distribution may or may not be inefficient. that has no bearing on the theory though, so what's the relevance?
sounds like you're equivocating on value. socially necessary, as I've said elsewhere, just means the average amount of time it takes to produce a commodity across the entire sector.
what do you mean by inherent value? if doesn't attempt to explain market prices. and what do you mean when you say the theory doesn't "account for distribution"?

Adrian Parker
Adrian Parker

ok retard

Ryan Green
Ryan Green

how is the theory ad-hoc? it makes testable predictions of novel fact.

Connor Roberts
Connor Roberts

Use value = How useful an object is.
Exchange value = Market value of a commodity. Different from use value. You can sell a beanie baby for 200$ but it is almost completely useless.
Value = the amount of congealed labor withing a commodity.
my response to this is that your third use of the word 'value' is pretty much useless. Nobody cares about how much labor is congealed in a thing. Literally nobody.
If you feel like you're working too hard and not getting compensated justly, go find something else to do. Labor itself is a commodity. Put yourself back on the market.

Ryder Fisher
Ryder Fisher

Value is a nebulous meaningless concept. typical pseudoscience

Sebastian Bailey
Sebastian Bailey

by that I appear to understand that you are willing to defend the theory itself rather than think with me of a way of it's implementation in reality. I have nothing against mathematical equations and logic gates, as well as nothing against your thread idea and you in general. Assuming it's mathematical concept I would agree with the theory, but cannot see a way of it's implementation.

Alexander Cooper
Alexander Cooper

salty commie realizes he's been admiring smoke and mirrors all these years

It's "testable predictions" are generalized cherry picking to bolster its credibility. If I "predict" its going to be cooler where you live this January, provided you're in the Northern Hemisphere, should a university award me a meteorology degree?

Predicting that capitalism will occasionally blunder into crises proves nothing, unless you can faithfully ascertain the exact causes of the crises. This would place Marxist "economists" at the top of the heap, and turn them into highly sought out business oracles. Nothing of the sort happens in real life.

Attached: 1497708350364.jpg (38 KB, 350x308)

Josiah Cook
Josiah Cook

This.

Justin Harris
Justin Harris

Labour Theory of Value ie how labor gives value to things
ok but what is value
value = the amount of congealed labor within a commodity
brilliant

Joseph Reed
Joseph Reed

I think the problem here is that you think the theory is something to be "implemented." It's a descriptive theory of capitalist economies. it doesn't make any normative claims about what SHOULD happen.
Predicting that capitalism will occasionally blunder into crises proves nothing, unless you can faithfully ascertain the exact causes of the crises
this isn't one of the testable predictions that the theory generates. you'd have to point out one of the actual predictions and explain why it's not a testable prediction of novel fact.

Bentley Robinson
Bentley Robinson

If you forgive all his pet definitions and locomotion of goalposts Marx actually made it make sense, but in that form it's just a long-winded version of the theory of supply and demand that comes nowhere near defining value as something objective.

Attached: ngbbs53a2d4e557771.jpg (63 KB, 300x300)

Aaron Sanders
Aaron Sanders

the theory does in fact define value as objective, albeit mutable and socially constructed

Zachary Morris
Zachary Morris

objective
mutable and socially constructed

Attached: ChooseOne.png (361 KB, 1023x749)

Nathan Long
Nathan Long

how does anyone know how much work it took to produce a good?
we don't. value (as it's used in the LTV) is only theoretically quantifiable. it's postulated as a theoretical unobservable.
then why even bring it up?

Aiden Cook
Aiden Cook

It makes no "testable predictions" not better explained by subjective theories of value. It's an old theory that's been surpassed by newer, better theories.

But unlike most discarded theories, it's adherents have given it the religious fervor of your typical death cult thanks to Marx's oracular posture and political call to action.

Attached: 1524348341948.png (603 KB, 506x658)

Lincoln Howard
Lincoln Howard

unimplementable theory based on economics is something I could compare to a desperate way of achieving your PhD in trashtalking. There is obviously no flaw in it's logic when it comes to the numbers and definition, just like any mathematical theorem, it just brings no value to the existing structures, it's almost like breaking 2+2=4 into 1+1+1+1=4, making the theory itself unnecessary to others; just giving another perspective on the same idea over and over again

good digits

Julian Hill
Julian Hill

objective things can't be mutable or socially constructed?
the same reason all theoretical unobservables are brought up: to explains something larger.

Christopher Gray
Christopher Gray

You have five seconds to pull that buttplug out of your ass, faggot.

Gabriel Miller
Gabriel Miller

It makes no "testable predictions" not better explained by subjective theories of value.
not true. do you know what a "novel fact" is? better yet, can you name any of the predictions the theory makes?
not all theories have to be prescriptive or "implementable"

Kevin Garcia
Kevin Garcia

No, things like that are called "subjective".

Henry Diaz
Henry Diaz

sounds like you're equivocating on value. socially necessary, as I've said elsewhere, just means the average amount of time it takes to produce a commodity across the entire sector.
Holy shit. Am I supposed to take you seriously. That is majestically retarded.
I'm using a pretty standard understanding of the word 'value' and you're defending a novel, logically twisted use of the word that has to be broken off into pieces to make any sense. "exchange value" "use value" blah blah.
Who's equivocating?

Wyatt Mitchell
Wyatt Mitchell

Define value first, cause that's where the discrepancies will be at. Marxists define value in the most absurd of ways.

Michael Campbell
Michael Campbell

what does communism have to do with the LTV, a theory of capitalism?
You sound like Smugglypuff

Benjamin Bell
Benjamin Bell

Now I remember the last time I got in this argument, the marxists started using 'objective' and 'subjective' opposite to their actual meanings.
These threads are honeypots.

Nathaniel Flores
Nathaniel Flores

value=what a thing is worth

Kayden Gonzalez
Kayden Gonzalez

we are reaching the point of conclusion that this thread was made just to point out that the mentioned theory was just an explanation of existing concept, a screech to the void. All replies gathered to this thread just wandered on leading to this fragile point stating the obvious - a theory of value without any values

Austin Jenkins
Austin Jenkins

You're not entitled to anything
sage this slide thread

Attached: bill-clinto-pc.gif (3.41 MB, 312x302)

Mason Reyes
Mason Reyes

my point is that it's not a sufficient criticism of a theory to say that a stipulative definition it proposes is different than your understanding of the term. that's the whole point.
is temperature of something objective? is the temperature of something liable to change?

James Rodriguez
James Rodriguez

What is more valuable to society: someone making one tin can by slowly cold working it with hand tools or someone who makes one with a click of a button on a press?

Angel Morris
Angel Morris

is the temperature of something liable to change?

Not through social constructs like you affirmed

Chase Martin
Chase Martin

its gay

Brayden Long
Brayden Long

the same reason all theoretical unobservables are brought up: to explains something larger.
all right, let's cut to the chase. The ltv was cooked up by marx to help build a logical case that profit is exploitative in all cases.
It's post hoc rationalization for class-war propaganda dressed up as legit economic theory.
That's your 'something larger' is it not? Profit is exploitative?

Jeremiah Allen
Jeremiah Allen

People keep telling me Marx was black so there's no way he could've been right.

Brandon Gray
Brandon Gray

ok
maybe we're understanding "socially constructed" in different ways. all I mean by it is to say that value is determined, according to the LTV, by the average labor-time it takes to reproduce it. that, to me, is socially-contingent. but, this average time will always be objective.

Samuel Nguyen
Samuel Nguyen

Marxism and Capitalism are two sides of the same coin.

Xavier Ortiz
Xavier Ortiz

not entirely. Marx's theory ofexploitation is a theory that is built upon the LTV, but the LTV purports to explain much more than just where profit comes from in the capitalist mode of production.

Brayden Cook
Brayden Cook

Done

Attached: Labor-value-theory-BTFO.png (277 KB, 528x236)

Jackson King
Jackson King

my point is that it's not a sufficient criticism of a theory to say that a stipulative definition it proposes is different than your understanding of the term. that's the whole point.
sufficient for what?
Besides which I was only responding to your audacious accusation of 'equivocating on value' when I was only using the word in a normal way and trying to figure out why marx had to make a mess out of the whole thing in the first place.
My actual criticism is that the ltv is nonsensical and unnecessary. We already have perfectly functional theories of value.

Tyler Powell
Tyler Powell

again, mudpies aren't commodities, because they have no use-value, so the LTV isn't claiming to explain its value/non-value. and just because people can do a bad job creating a commodity with a the same raw materials as someone who does a good job, that doesn't have a bearing on the SNLT required to produce whatever commodity we're talking about.

Justin Robinson
Justin Robinson

define me how is labour value theory determining my hentai sketches worth and in case if it is deemed non-valuable, how can an artist be excluded from receiving his equal share from produced goods in a hierachyless & non-authoritarian commune?

Jose Cook
Jose Cook

Marginal cost of production is not always constant, you cannot objectively identify the value of a product if the cost of production increases as you keep producing them. Only marginal use would determine it in that case.

Samuel Jenkins
Samuel Jenkins

sufficient to be a valid criticism of the theory. to use a technical terms a theory uses in a completely different way is equivocation by definition. and ok, those are just assertions; I'm asking you to explain why the theory is nonsensical and unnecessary (two very different claims, btw).

Sebastian Allen
Sebastian Allen

pieces of art aren't freely reproducible goods; the theory doesn't purport to explain them. and the theory doesn't make any normative claims about people making their "equal share."
Marginal cost of production is not always constant, you cannot objectively identify the value of a product if the cost of production increases as you keep producing them.
right, I've said that value is mutable.

Jaxon Hughes
Jaxon Hughes

but the LTV purports to explain much more than just where profit comes from in the capitalist mode of production.
what is the #1 most useful thing that ltv is used to explain.

Josiah Robinson
Josiah Robinson

equilibrium prices. the laws of motion of capitalist economies. the falling rate of profit. etc.

Isaiah Roberts
Isaiah Roberts

Manuka Honey.
Same amount of labour required to produce as regular honey, 10x more expensive due to scarcity.

Nicholas Taylor
Nicholas Taylor

pieces of art aren't freely reproducible goods
funny how capitalism has managed to turn them into reproducible goods via printing technology lmao
But since it's not possible in your cummunist utopia, this would mean that my hentai sketches are in great labour value, as reproducible goods & tools have been used to create them.
Which means I can draw hentai all day I want in a cummune and receive my equal share of all produced goods, right?

Justin Jones
Justin Jones

nonsensical because it doesn't make any sense. Or maybe it does, after a lot of explanation. But at that point, the question becomes 'okay but why?'
unnecessary because it doesn't do anything that better theories already do.
So, maybe it's better to say that the theory appears at first to be nonsensical but eventually reveals itself to be merely unnecessary.

Ryan Brooks
Ryan Brooks

that's right. supply and demand determine market prices. the theory doesn't claim otherwise.

David Ross
David Ross

also to add:
you can reproduce such sketches by putting another paper on top of the original one and redraw it under a light lmao
Assuming there's electricity in your cummunist utopia

Ryder Rogers
Ryder Rogers

value is subjective

Gavin Murphy
Gavin Murphy

The labor theory of value (LTV) is a heterodox theory of value that argues that the economic value of a good or service is determined by the total amount of "socially necessary labor" required to produce it, rather than by the use or pleasure its owner gets from it (demand) and its scarcity value (supply)
rather than [...] its scarcity value
yes, it does

Joshua Butler
Joshua Butler

that entire statement is disproven by the fact that western europe has had to work less and less the richer it became

Jaxon Long
Jaxon Long

meant for:

Daniel Evans
Daniel Evans

and it was proven over 100 years ago

Nicholas Anderson
Nicholas Anderson

nonsensical because it doesn't make any sense. Or maybe it does, after a lot of explanation. But at that point, the question becomes 'okay but why?'
your argument is that the theory is nonsensical because it's difficult to understand?
unnecessary because it doesn't do anything that better theories already do.
again, this is an assertion. show me what specific prediction the theory generates that is better explained by another theory and why.
So, maybe it's better to say that the theory appears at first to be nonsensical but eventually reveals itself to be merely unnecessary.
so it's a superfluous, not incorrect, theory now? what's the argument for that.
funny how capitalism has managed to turn them into reproducible goods via printing technology lmao
prints of an original artwork aren't the same as the original artwork, right?
ut since it's not possible in your cummunist utopia, this would mean that my hentai sketches are in great labour value, as reproducible goods & tools have been used to create them.
Which means I can draw hentai all day I want in a cummune and receive my equal share of all produced goods, right?
again, the theory doesn't prescribe how things should be distributed in post-capitalist societies.

Aaron Gonzalez
Aaron Gonzalez

Labour is at this point fully automisable therefore it has no inherent value.

Lincoln Brooks
Lincoln Brooks

just one, please
equilibrium prices
standard economic theories already explain this, no?
the other things... seriously, what is the point? why does marx have to go around his ass to get to his elbow?

Jacob Thompson
Jacob Thompson

what the theory is claiming is that a commodity's value is distinct from its market price. market price fluctuates around value due to supply and demand.
assertion. what's the argument for that? are you using value in the same sense as the LTV?

John Gray
John Gray

value is subjective and will always be subjective you fucking idiot
labor is also subjective
you suck at this kiddo
a fucking leaf
why am i not surprised

Asher Peterson
Asher Peterson

not true. do you know what a "novel fact" is?

Gives Marx some bragging points, but doesn't validate his theory.

17th Century astronomer Johannes Kepler was convinced the planets were aligned according to some relationship to the five platonic solids. In the course of pursuing this theory, he discovered the three laws of planetary motion crucial to modern astronomy.

But his original postulate, about the platonic solids, was bunk.

Attached: 1522844676124.png (226 KB, 511x474)

Evan Jackson
Evan Jackson

I’m entering into a voluntary agreement when using my labor, I am not forced to retain a circumstance I find myself in. If you have trouble finding a job after your first you’re already hopeless.

Josiah Rogers
Josiah Rogers

I want my answer you useless cummie

Jayden Cook
Jayden Cook

value is subjective and will always be subjective you fucking idiot
why? whatever takes to create something is not subjective, is very specifically defined.
labor is also subjective
how?

Leo Ramirez
Leo Ramirez

I love the lolbertarians mental gymnastics, they don't even know what a theory of value is, holy kek

Daniel Myers
Daniel Myers

standard equilibrium theories don't explain why the a commodity's equilibrium price is at a certain magnitude and not another. and the point of the theory is that, given the predictions the theory generates, we have reason to believe that capitalism is unsustainable.
I didn't say the fact that the theory predicts novel facts validates the theory. but it makes it not ad-hoc.
again, this is an assertion, not an argument.

Alexander Rogers
Alexander Rogers

The guy is probably fucking rich

Elijah Hughes
Elijah Hughes

what is value of my hentai sketches in your cummunist utopia?

Brayden Price
Brayden Price

what are you asking? I've already explained that the theory doesn't make normative claims about how wealth should be distributed.

Lucas Barnes
Lucas Barnes

And yet the manuka honey still has more inherent value, if you're not talking about price.
If the supply of manuka was equal to the supply of regular honey, 100g of regular honey traded against 100g of manuka would not be worthwhile or wise, due to the supposed additional health benefits of the manuka (this is also partly why the price is higher), despite them taking equal amounts of labour to harvest.
Thus the value of manuka is higher despite the exact same amount of labour needed to produce it as regular honey.
I'll ask you for your definition of value in your retort, as I've no doubt misunderstood.

Jeremiah Hernandez
Jeremiah Hernandez

Hentai is degenerate senpai

Brayden Nelson
Brayden Nelson

As I said that the pieces of art can be reproduced via tools & have then value in your cummunist utopia, right?
Who would have authority over me to tell me I'm wrong?

Jordan Moore
Jordan Moore

he was a kike

Jace Ward
Jace Ward

Because value is fucking subjective?

How hard is that to understand?

Jaxon Perry
Jaxon Perry

again, this is an assertion. show me what specific prediction the theory generates that is better explained by another theory and why.
I'm not familiar with any predictions made via the ltv. I'll just say that the subjective theory works better than the ltv in all situations where actual economic analysis is being done.
so it's a superfluous, not incorrect, theory now? what's the argument for that.
I didn't say it's incorrect. I only suspect it's incorrect. But we don't need to prove that either way because we know that it's not even a necessary theory in the first place.
As for it's nonsensicality, I did amend that to 'seems nonsensical.' Yes, it's hard to understand. The theory is already unnecessary, why should it be unclear as well? Maybe to muddy the waters?

Christian Hernandez
Christian Hernandez

nownow, there's no authority in your cummunist utopia who can tell me I'm wrong or that I must stop drawing them or deny me my equal share of all goods while only providing hentai sketches for the cummune.

Jack Martinez
Jack Martinez

Marx's conception of value that he formulates in this theory is very particular to capitalist economies. things wouldn't have "value" in communist societies (the way Marx uses the term in the LTV, anyway).

Juan James
Juan James

As I said that the pieces of art can be reproduced via tools & have then value in your cummunist utopia, right?
not really, the whole point of a painting is that a specific person painted it, if you reproduce it, you don't have the original, you have a reproduction.
do you think people would pay the same for the reproduction as they would for the original?
if the answer you give is "yes", then you're actually retarded.

Jonathan Gray
Jonathan Gray

Marx never invented the theory but its still shit.

Samuel Diaz
Samuel Diaz

value is not subjective, whatever cost to create something is always going to be the same, you can't asign that different values, since it's the same.
price is subjective, not value.
price and value are very different things.

Nathaniel Miller
Nathaniel Miller

I never claimed he did. could you explain why it's shit?

Bentley Williams
Bentley Williams

There is nothing wrong with the theory of labor because it was proposed by Adam Smith in the wealth of nations. What is the problem is the notion that the employee is entitle to 100% of his labor is ridiculous. The problem is that the employer is risking more by providing a place to work, tools, materials, intelectual property and other minor things. The employee exchanged security for a fix value of his or her labor ;therefore, the exchange of value is equal

Colton Turner
Colton Turner

Teach me:

Noah Murphy
Noah Murphy

it assumes all work is equal in value.
still got 4 seconds left. i think ill go have a fap.
saged.

Cameron Martinez
Cameron Martinez

I didn't say the fact that the theory predicts novel facts validates the theory. but it makes it not ad-hoc.

It's ad hoc because Marx knew if Labor wasn't the source of all value, it would invalidate his concept of exploitation and everything else about his political theory would collapse. So he routinely creates new terminology to explain away any exceptions.

Kepler likely did the same thing. He arrived at "novel facts" of planetary motion, but his overarching theory of planetary alignment via platonic solids was wrong, and pursuing it only created ad hoc "solutions" to fit verifiable realities into it.

Gavin Collins
Gavin Collins

please ask again, I might be able to answer, I'm not willing to read 700 posts or whatever.

Cooper Sanders
Cooper Sanders

you're talking about use-value, not value.

Daniel Thomas
Daniel Thomas

it assumes all work is equal in value.
except it literally doesn't.

Andrew Hall
Andrew Hall

Because it makes no sense. I honestly don't understand how anyone over the age of 14 can believe in the labor theory of value, but whatever. Essentially the labor theory of value says that the idea that the price of an product or service is determined by the amount of labor put into it. If it takes a day to make one pair of pants, a chair that took two weeks to make should be more valuable than said pants. This theory falls apart almost immediately when you actually think about it logically. By Marx's logic, a comic book that took mere pennies to draw and ink should only be work pennies. Yet a copy of Action Comics #1 is currently worth hundreds of dollars, despite only costing pennies to produce. There are countless examples as to why the labor theory of value doesn't work, and that's just one of them.

Supply and demand determine price, not labor. I can spend hundreds of my own dollars and several months of my own time building a typewriter from scratch, but it won't be worth much because there's no demand for typewriters anymore.

BTW before you marxist fags start spamming the "but muh use value vs. labor value", I understand the difference. The problem is that these two values are irrelevant. Again, supply and demand determines price. The "value" of an object or service is irrelevant because the amount of labor put into making said product or service, and the exchange value, do not necessarily factor into the price. Water is very valuable to each human as a necessity to survive, so it has a high use value. But buying water is extremely cheap because there's a massive supply of it.

Jayden Taylor
Jayden Taylor

diamonds are the strongest material and thus used to cut things. they are massively valuable for industry

William Gutierrez
William Gutierrez

it assumes all work is equal in value.
it explicitly assumes the opposite.
I think you're misunderstanding what an ad-hoc theory is. are you saying that it's ad-hoc because Marx uses a supposition to explain other phenomena?

James Mitchell
James Mitchell

things wouldn't have "value" in communist societies
so I could literally take a shit on a plate, call it a piece of modern art and still get my equal share of all produced goods? lmao
do you think people would pay
pay
nobody pays in cummunist utopia lmao
you provide in such a cummune,
if you reproduce it, you don't have the original,
of course I still have the first, original version lmao. I've at that point masterfully created something completely new and I'm able to duplicate it and hence providing for the cummune and as such should receive my equal share of all produced goods.
impyling anybody could deny them from me in a hierarchyless and non-authoritarian society anyway
mfw

Attached: images.jpg (4 KB, 130x130)

Lincoln Powell
Lincoln Powell

Essentially the labor theory of value says that the idea that the price of an product or service is determined by the amount of labor put into it.
no it doesn't.

Zachary Richardson
Zachary Richardson

The appearance of difficulty or long-work affects people more than the official amount of time put into it. An example is a cake made from pre-packaged cake-mix that has a candle on it, versus a cake made from scratch with smudgy icing. Even if you told people that the ugly one took longer to make, they'll still prefer the pretty one.

It also doesn't explain how it will be implemented. People don't work based off of the labor theory of value. That's why they'll still kill each other over gold and pieces of paper. How do you intend to switch people over to caring about how long it took to make something, rather than valuing the intrinsic quality of the goods and services in question?

Anthony Mitchell
Anthony Mitchell

standard equilibrium theories don't explain why the a commodity's equilibrium price is at a certain magnitude and not another
well then let me just invent one on the spot: the magnitude of the equilibrium is relative to the magnitude of adjacent commdities (especially currencies.) And when it's not, you can wager that intervention is the culprit.
we have reason to believe that capitalism is unsustainable.
surprisingly, this is not a controversial thing to believe. Remind me though, did Marx recommend implementing a system to replace capitalism or to wait until capitalism collapses and then let a new system emerge?
Neither option really requires the ltv, though, does it?

Brody Scott
Brody Scott

again, the theory doesn't provide normative claims about how goods should be distributed. I think this is fourth time I'm explaining this to you.

Daniel Edwards
Daniel Edwards

So the theory just defines a concept of "value" as "the amount of labour needed to produce a good"?
So the "value" of manuka is less than the "value" of cheap, nasty honey cut with golden syrup because making the syrup and cutting the honey made the process longer?
What use is this definition if it has no applicability in the real world?

Carson Gonzalez
Carson Gonzalez

lmao then what defines value of it?
Who judges whether this value is correct or not?
Why does he/they have this authority over me/them in your cummunist utopia?

Leo Powell
Leo Powell

price and value are very different things.
price is a measurement of value

Isaac Gonzalez
Isaac Gonzalez

Yes, it does.

"The labor theory of value (LTV) was an early attempt by economists to explain why goods were exchanged for certain relative prices on the market. It suggested that the value of a commodity could be measured objectively by the average number of labor hours necessary to produce it."
investopedia.com/terms/l/labor-theory-of-value.asp

Levi Powell
Levi Powell

I think you're misunderstanding what an ad-hoc theory is.

I really don't think I am.

In science and philosophy, an ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. Often, ad hoc hypothesizing is employed to compensate for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form.
Scientists are often skeptical of theories that rely on frequent, unsupported adjustments to sustain them. This is because, if a theorist so chooses, there is no limit to the number of ad hoc hypotheses that they could add. Thus the theory becomes more and more complex, but is never falsified. This is often at a cost to the theory's predictive power, however.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis

Describes Marxism to a tee.

Attached: 1506755591480.jpg (80 KB, 336x228)

Ryan Hughes
Ryan Hughes

well then let me just invent one on the spot: the magnitude of the equilibrium is relative to the magnitude of adjacent commdities (especially currencies.) And when it's not, you can wager that intervention is the culprit.
you're saying that equilibrium prices are determined by other commodities' equilibrium prices?
surprisingly, this is not a controversial thing to believe. Remind me though, did Marx recommend implementing a system to replace capitalism or to wait until capitalism collapses and then let a new system emerge?
he didn't "recommend" one or the other. but he thought that capitalism wouldn't just cease to exists because of crises, without a concerted movement to replace it.
Neither option really requires the ltv, though, does it?
not sure what you mean by "require" but no.

Michael Taylor
Michael Taylor

a chair that took two weeks to make should be more valuable than said pants
no, it's the average amount of time that it takes to produce a product, not the individual time it takes in each specific case.
By Marx's logic, a comic book that took mere pennies to draw and ink should only be work pennies. Yet a copy of Action Comics #1 is currently worth hundreds of dollars, despite only costing pennies to produce.
art is only worth more because its specific conditions are irreproducible, given enough supply of Action Comics #1, supply and demand would balance out, and it would be PRICED exactly the same as the other comics, because they have the same value and always did, there was just scarcity which drove its price up.
Supply and demand determine price
no debate about that, Marx said it himself, and I explained it in my previous point.
VALUE however, is determined by how much it cost to produce something, and it always costs nothing more than labour.
I can spend hundreds of my own dollars and several months of my own time building a typewriter from scratch, but it won't be worth much because there's no demand for typewriters anymore.
correct, value is only possible in society, if society needs a products then it has value, society DOES NOT decide the value of the product, because they didn't create it, and you can't generate value through sheer willpower, which means that demand is what decides whether something has value or not, but it's not what gives it value, whatever it cost to produce is what it gives it value, and that's labour.

Adam Brooks
Adam Brooks

that doesn't matter, my point has been the fact that arts also have some labour value as reproducible tools are used to create it and they can be recreated.
What I want to know how are their value defined?
If I stretch the creation time to double due to my laziness, does this mean the value doubles too?
Who makes the determination of my creations' worth and my labour's worth in your cummunist utopia?

Tyler Sullivan
Tyler Sullivan

it almost always leads to totalitarianism

David Davis
David Davis

price is subjective, not value.
and you got that switched around. Price is objective. If you paid $1 for something, you paid a dollar.
It's value that's subjective. If the price is $1 someone might think the thing is worth more or less than that and act accordingly.

Juan Reed
Juan Reed

the confused Arab is actually right lmao

Mason Young
Mason Young

are you claiming that the theory of exploitation makes the LTV unfalsifiable? or vice-versa?
you're mistaking value and market price. the latter fluctuates around the former.

Bentley Nelson
Bentley Nelson

no, value and price are different things.
this is why price fluctuates and the exact same thing might have different prices, because there's an imbalance in supply and demand, if there's scarcity then it's gonna have a higher price, if the marke is oversaturated with a product then its price will be lower, but the essence of the product is the same, the value didn't change, it was always the same, what changed was it's price.
price and value correlate only when there's an absolute balance of supply and demand.

Samuel Turner
Samuel Turner

except it LITERALLY does. (in the sense that this is exactly what marx claimed in his book)
as you dont even know what the word LITERALLY means, i have no respect for your opinions.
marx applied a fuzzy logic to his "theory" that determined that a plumber's labour is exactly as essential, and thus exactly as valuable as that of a surgeon.
if you attempt to claim otherwise, you are opposing 100 years of marxist dialectic, and are thus a counter revolutionary. 10 years in gulag for you.
also, marx's "theories" propose no solutions not better explained by other theories, provide no empirical data to support his claims, and are universally un-testable and un-falsifiable (that means they can be niether p[roved nor disproved, like the existence of "god", or the existence of a french military victory)
Marx's "theories" are not even Hypotheses, they barely rise to the level of "A Notion". and can be discarded wiothouit consequence by anyone who ever ran a household budget or balkanced a checkbook.
marx's "theories" are even less useful then those of john maynard keynes who was, LITERALLY a retard (in the sense that he proved this to be true by writing his books...)
now go back to your favela and play in the open sewer. nobody cares what niggers think.

Charles Nguyen
Charles Nguyen

Mind replying to my honey argument?

Lucas Reed
Lucas Reed

Marx never did a day's labor. Never created anything of value. Sponged off his rich mate his whole life.
I can see why OP would feel such affinity for the lazy faggot.

Aiden Harris
Aiden Harris

he LITERALLY does not. where do you think he claims any of this?

James Collins
James Collins

confused
huh

Jacob Young
Jacob Young

you can't labor and party at the same time
fags.

Alexander Allen
Alexander Allen

just because something has a higher value, doesn't mean it has a higher use-value

Dominic Thomas
Dominic Thomas

Attached: marx.png (78 KB, 684x828)

Chase Diaz
Chase Diaz

ok you ignorant fuck, here we go:
the LTV does recognize that someone that works more efficiently or produces something of better quality is doing a better job and his labour is worth more, the same for the other way around and his labour would be worth less.
that's what I meant with "all work isn't worth the same".
ofcourse that different specializations are all the same, there's no reason to claim a plumber and a surgeon should be paid differently just because of what they do, it's all labour.

Jonathan Cooper
Jonathan Cooper

I am just gonna leave this here

Attached: 0502putinstalin01.jpg (55 KB, 854x570)

Carson Harris
Carson Harris

imagine being this retarded.

Wyatt Collins
Wyatt Collins

You must produce one car
You have 1 million men who will give all of their labor
you do not have any of the tools or materials required
The men expend all of their potential for labor, day in and day out for one year and produce no car
What value does that labor have?
Huh, seems like maybe labor isn't the whole picture

Xavier Phillips
Xavier Phillips

You don't buy 3 hours of chinese manufacturing work when you buy an iphone, you value the physical phone or whatever it is that you are buying.

Charles Harris
Charles Harris

in Das kapital, marx explicitly declares that ALL PRODUCTIVE USEFUL WORK IS EQUALLY VALUABLE.
claiming otherwise proves you have no clue what marxism is really all about, and thus are a typical internet marxist, to whit: a ignorant cunt who wants free shit.
marxism is predicated on several presumptions, none of which bear up under scrutiny, and thus, marx's schemes inevitably fail. "labor theory of value" is just the most obvious and retarded of his faulty assumptions.

value is determined by Utility, Desirability and Scarcity.
example: horse shit is very useful, and requires a lot of work to collect and transport, so therefore it must have great value...
Nope.
horseshit has lots of utility, but it is not particularly desirable, and it is not hared to find, so it has very low value.
conversely, a jackson pollock painting has absolutely ZERO utility, in that it serves no functional purpose, at least no more functions than any other soiled painters drop cloth, yet some fools find it desirable, and there are far more fools wanting them than there are old housepainter's tarps with a particular signature available, so the price is astronomical.
marx is simply WRONG.

Blake Howard
Blake Howard

People set the value of goods and this is independent of any assigned, arbitrary labour value

Ethan Cook
Ethan Cook

Then I'm on the right track, the "value" of manuka is lower than cheap honey cut with syrup, even though the "use-value" of manuka is higher and it's quicker to produce.

So what use is the theory if inferior products that take longer to make are valued higher?

William Gomez
William Gomez

It's surprising. Usually posters from other boards will be informed enthusiasts about their topic whether you go to /g/ or /sci/. Come to Jow Forums and it's like facebook tier understanding of politics and economics. How does a board based on politics not even know the works of one of the best and most influential economists in history. This board should be raving for Marx and communists like true enthusiasts.

OP asking about LTV
Boomer rambles incoherently about something else
Take your pills gramps

Brody Sanchez
Brody Sanchez

Nailed it, commie faggot btfo!

Camden Stewart
Camden Stewart

In an economy, the price of a product or service determines its value. How value something is in terms of keeping you alive (ie the use value) is irrelevant. Water has a really high use value since you need it to live, yet bottled water is very cheap.

Adrian Nelson
Adrian Nelson

almost...
marx explains in great detail how the glorious revolution MUST lead to The Authoritarian Socialist State, which suppresses all dissent and "re-educates" the masses in "scientific marxism" until such tiome as The Authoritarian Socialist State suddenly and inexplicably decides to dissolve itself.
marxism ALWAYS leads to totalitarianism. it is in the manual.

Isaiah Turner
Isaiah Turner

in Das kapital, marx explicitly declares that ALL PRODUCTIVE USEFUL WORK IS EQUALLY VALUABLE.
lmao. if you can point to a passage where he claims this, I'll paypal you $100.
value is determined by Utility, Desirability and Scarcity.
according to Marx's LTV? no. those are just the traits of a commodity. they don't determine the commodity's value.

Caleb Ross
Caleb Ross

you're saying that equilibrium prices are determined by other commodities' equilibrium prices?
I'm saying that economies are systems and that all of the parts of the system affect the other. So their magnitudes (for one) would be relative to each other. As the system grows, so grows its internals.
This leads to your same conclusion-that capitalism might not be sustainable-but uses only what I know of standard economics. With perhaps some Austrianism thrown in, admittedly.
Point is that with simpler economic theories I can get the same conclusion. Labor theory then is unnecessary, while also overly difficult to understand.
he thought that capitalism wouldn't just cease to exists because of crises, without a concerted movement to replace it.
So Marx did in fact have a revolutionary agenda. Dissuade me from assuming that his agenda existed before he took up the ltv, and that he didn't take up the ltv in service to his agenda.
not sure what you mean by "require" but no.
My point here is just to add support to my assertion that ltv is unnecessary.
(Unless of course you are building a case for revolution.)

Xavier Hall
Xavier Hall

hippity hoppity goyims is property

Christopher Jones
Christopher Jones

Marx doesn't claim that commodities can't be produced using constant capital assets.

Henry Brown
Henry Brown

OK, so OP is faget. What's this slide thread been trying to distract everyone from?

Bentley Cooper
Bentley Cooper

Labor Theory of Value

The labor theory of value is a major pillar of traditional Marxian economics, which is evident in Marx’s masterpiece, Capital (1867). The theory’s basic claim is simple: the value of a commodity can be objectively measured by the average number of labor hours required to produce that commodity.

If a pair of shoes usually takes twice as long to produce as a pair of pants, for example, then shoes are twice as valuable as pants. In the long run, the competitive price of shoes will be twice the price of pants, regardless of the value of the physical inputs.
~econlib.org/library/Enc/Marxism.html

daft cunt.

Jayden Clark
Jayden Clark

Tools and materials are part of constant capital, I believe. Labour is variable.

Elijah Brown
Elijah Brown

if the SNLT of that honey is higher, yes. now, that doesn't mean that the MARKET PRICE will be higher. it will probably be lower, actually. the point of the theory is to determine the laws of motion of the capitalist mode of production.

William Evans
William Evans

wrong, value fluctuates and price is a measurement of those fluctuations.
You're using a novel definition of 'value.'

Jeremiah Cox
Jeremiah Cox

courses.vcu.edu/PHY-rhg/astron/html/mod/006/index.html

Statements that belong in science must be about reproducible observations. However, as Karl Popper pointed out, there is a much stricter requirement.

A scientific statement is one that could possibly be proven wrong.

How many times will you make this thread? Marxism has aspects which aren't falsifiable this is one which means to believe this is like having faith in religion. Consequently no matter how many times you make this thread no one will ever convince you. In fact people on Jow Forums failing to convince you the LOTV is wrong will feed into your belief that you're right and further solidify your views. When in actuality because it's not falsifiable you will not be convinced not because you're smarter or Marx was right. Ironic since Marx isn't utopian.

How will the time put into determining value be measured? Will determining value itself be valued highly? Who will determine the value? How will time be defined in relation to value? All these must be clarified for the theory to hold weight anyways.

Christopher Roberts
Christopher Roberts

lol. so instead of providing a passage from Capital that argues that all labour is of equal value, you link me to a website that DOESN'T EVEN MAKE THAT CLAIM?

Colton Miller
Colton Miller

In an economy, the price of a product or service determines its value.
nope, that's the price, the value is different.
price is whatever the market says it is, based on supply and demand, if there's too much supply, more than enough to meet the demand, it's price will sink below it's value, if it suddenly suffers from scarcity and the supply is way shorter than the demand, its price will sky rocket.
given perfect balance of supply and demand, the price will be it's value, and Marx explained that for most products their price oscilates a bit above and below its value, more or less, except for the ones where there's a monopoly or specificy scarcity, etc.
How value something is in terms of keeping you alive (ie the use value) is irrelevant.
wat
Water has a really high use value since you need it to live, yet bottled water is very cheap.
yes, there's a lot of water, that's why it's cheap.

Gabriel Perez
Gabriel Perez

Look at this faggot. He thinks muskets have more value than modern rifles because of the amount of labor it takes to create one.

Meanwhile, machines are churning out AR-15’s exponentially faster and with far less labor.

What a faggot.

Nathaniel Cooper
Nathaniel Cooper

1. He's Jewish
2. He's communist
Gee, I wonder why Jow Forums doesn't like him

Jaxon Robinson
Jaxon Robinson

you'd have to explain why the theory is unfalsifiable. does it not make testable predictions of novel fact?

Owen Butler
Owen Butler

You're using a novel definition of 'value.'
no, we're discussing the LTV, I'm using it's definition.
if you want to explain what value is to you go right ahead, because so far you haven't.

Landon Wood
Landon Wood

ideas work on paper, reality doesnt

Parker Powell
Parker Powell

that's not what he said, you can dislike something, you can still know the most basic concepts about it.

Henry Howard
Henry Howard

We're just another branch of nasty cunt apes.
Like trying to put wings on a dog.

David Morales
David Morales

Reality doesn't work on paper?

Ethan Gutierrez
Ethan Gutierrez

what are you even saying?
why is Jow Forums full of deranged mongs

Caleb Harris
Caleb Harris

if something is less valuable while providing more use-value, the product that preceded it will likely stop being produced, as is the case with the musket.

John Thomas
John Thomas

He's saying it's ideology, not natural order.

Grayson Harris
Grayson Harris

Kuwait is one of those rich gulf oil states. I thought this was common knowledge.

Adam Lee
Adam Lee

no, we're discussing the LTV, I'm using it's definition.
Right, and I'm saying that's a novel definition. You're arguing shit that I addressed a dozen posts ago.
And yeah I did explain what value is "to me." To me it's the same as it is to everyone else: what a thing is worth.

Juan Sullivan
Juan Sullivan

There is no objective value as value itself is born from a subjective appreciation of something.

Go to bed and think about it.

Carson Allen
Carson Allen

that's not true though. Not everyone has the same kind of access to water. Some people live on the oceans and some people live in a desert. is water worth the same to these two people? how does one set price for water benefit these two people?

Zachary Perry
Zachary Perry

It ignores serotonin

Austin Stewart
Austin Stewart

That's how fast you can destroy an ideology. G'night.

Andrew Ortiz
Andrew Ortiz

how do you measure it?

Lincoln Taylor
Lincoln Taylor

geniuses. the whole lot of you. I'm BTFO

John Cox
John Cox

you labor for weeks making a widget that does nothing
nobody wants to buy the worthless widget despite your arduous labor
therefore labor =\= value

Chase Miller
Chase Miller

latest prices. Didn't we cover this already?

Ethan Rodriguez
Ethan Rodriguez

Not everyone has the same kind of access to water. Some people live on the oceans and some people live in a desert. is water worth the same to these two people?
if one is in the middle of the ocean, and the other in the middle of a sahara like desert, then yes, water would be worth the same to both since they're both in dire need of it and there's none around.
how does one set price for water benefit these two people?
in free market? supply and demand, remember that's not it's value, it's just the price.
in a planned economy? whatever amount of labour it took to extract and transport that water to them.
not that difficult.

Logan Lewis
Logan Lewis

you're supposed to read threads before posting in them.

Jeremiah Ramirez
Jeremiah Ramirez

So, why should anyone care about this narrow example of value, that obviously becomes outdated as economies innovate and do more with less human interaction?

Cameron Peterson
Cameron Peterson

no, how do you measure value? I'm not gonna keep asking, you're gonna have to answer.

Jayden Howard
Jayden Howard

this has been fun but imma go read about hitler now

Christopher Cook
Christopher Cook

The labor theory of value is an observation of reality, it's not necessarily an application of a practicality, you imbecile.

Jackson Rogers
Jackson Rogers

A lot of retards from Reddit and StormFront have invaded Jow Forums in recent weeks but that doesn't mean all of us are brainlets. As a traditional Fascist I am staunchly opposed to all of Marx's ideas. There is no reason for me to be enthused about the redistribution of wealth or any type of "equality."

Ian Cooper
Ian Cooper

you've said literally nothing twice now.
keep it up.

Dylan Peterson
Dylan Peterson

what are you even talking about? I said price is a measure of value. If you're trying to make a point make it.

Justin Davis
Justin Davis

the whole point is that the less human labour required in the production of a commodity, the less value it has. what do you mean by "outdated"?

Christian Cook
Christian Cook

Seems to be a bit of a misquote.

marxists.catbull.com/archive/marx/works/1867/letters/67_04_30.htm

"Why then did I not answer you? Because I was the whole time at death’s door. I thus had to make use of every moment when I was capable of work to complete my book [Capital] to which I have sacrificed my health, happiness, and family. I hope this explanation suffices. I laugh at the so-called ‘practical’ men and their wisdom. If one wanted to be an ox, one could, of course, turn one’s back on the sufferings of humanity and look after one’s own hide. But I should really have thought myself unpractical if I had pegged out without finally completing my book, at least in manuscript."

Your quote would lead to false and opposite conclusions.

Hudson Richardson
Hudson Richardson

That being said, it illuminates an obvious conclusion.

Asher Torres
Asher Torres

So because the "use-value" of manuka is higher then the functionally identical cheap honey, the market price of manuka is correspondingly higher than the more highly valued cheap honey, and so the lower valued product is overproduced to generate maximum "surplus-value" profit in the capitalist's drive to siphon off higher amounts of the lower value of the product and this leads to the price going down due to a surplus of supply, production slows down and the cycle starts again.
Do I understand it now?

Luis Edwards
Luis Edwards

i wonder why the right always goes directly to ad hominem whenever marx's actual theory is brought it... it's almost like they have nothing really substantial to say about it, and not only that, they're afraid the people who can understand it will "fall for its tricks", and the only thing to do is try to get the especially gullible to turn off their brains because "marx killed 60 gorillion whites." it's like the USSR is their holohoax.

Chase Thompson
Chase Thompson

just saying "price" isn't explaining how you measure value.
I think you might be legitimately retarded.

Luis Martin
Luis Martin

A diamond is going to be worth the same whether someone finds it on the ground or spends 1000 hours mining it.

Landon Perry
Landon Perry

Explain to me the concept of the tradesmen and how that fits into the class contradiction dialect please
Then I will tell you my views on labor value

Anthony Sanders
Anthony Sanders

yes, how is this an argument?

Kayden Bailey
Kayden Bailey

I've only spent the last hour or whatever trying to make a fair and valid argument against the labor theory of value. Thanks anyway 1-post.

Connor Baker
Connor Baker

This thread is an entire example of that just like your other threads.

However, if several commodities are made which are combined to create a new commodity. Such as the various parts of a car individually made then combined to make the car. And each one of these commodities took little effort and time to make but combined equal a lot of time. Will that finished product be more valued than one commodity that took more than each individual part? If so then a commodities value can be increased if it's used alongside other commodities. Thus it's how the time and labor power is used not how much time is spent alone?

Jacob Hall
Jacob Hall

You have five seconds to provide an argument against a utilitarian theory of value. Go ahead.

Easton Gomez
Easton Gomez

So because the "use-value" of manuka is higher then the functionally identical cheap honey, the market price of manuka is correspondingly higher than the more highly valued cheap honey
right, because supply and demand determines market prices.
and so the lower valued product is overproduced to generate maximum "surplus-value" profit in the capitalist's drive to siphon off higher amounts of the lower value of the product and this leads to the price going down due to a surplus of supply, production slows down and the cycle starts again.
not sure what you mean by this. if the capitalist was making less profit due to a better product made by a competitor entering the market, then he would try to either extract more surplus value, or adopt labor-saving technology that allows him more efficiency and thus higher short-term profits. but if he does the latter, once everyone of his competitors does the same, the rate of profit for that industry should decline, because less human-labour is involved, meaning less surplus value can be extracted.

Charles Bailey
Charles Bailey

strawman
Why don’t you learn how to present an argument instead of coming off like a massive faggot

Angel Cooper
Angel Cooper

Labour doesn't determine market value

Asher Martinez
Asher Martinez

Or lies about spending a 1000 hours mining it.

Jeremiah Ortiz
Jeremiah Ortiz

What about raw inputs? How do you determine their value? Like gold? It's only as valuable as the miner's time? Does LTV really ignore supply and demand?

Attached: 1543875080214.jpg (56 KB, 540x960)

Wyatt Rivera
Wyatt Rivera

Its very dialectic.

Attached: zupjby.jpg (127 KB, 1280x720)

Bentley Wood
Bentley Wood

or maybe I'm not really paying attention to your latecomer attempts to bait me. I don't even know what you're talking about. Mostly because I don't give a fuck. I've wasted enough time in this thread and the capcha is getting irritating. Gotta go.
Faggot.

Isaac Jackson
Isaac Jackson

labor creates value except when it doesn't
and it's also the only thing that creates value, except for the things that do

Blake Peterson
Blake Peterson

staunchly opposed to all of Marx's ideas
the redistribution of wealth or any type of "equality."
Ah so you don't actually understand Marx's ideas.
marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm
This is a good place to start friend

Josiah Hill
Josiah Hill

A musket is not more valuable than a modern rifle, by any measure. It takes a lot of labor to produce and its use labor is low. Rifles are superior in nearly every way to a musket.

If this is the case, why should anyone care about the narrowly defined concept of “value” as described by Marx.

Surely, most things are going to evolve in such a way that use value increases and (labor) value decreases.

Why should anyone care? Whats the point?

Jonathan Cox
Jonathan Cox

wrong, and you still didn't answer me.
how is finding a diamond as opposed to mining it an argument against the LTV?

Nolan Ramirez
Nolan Ramirez

Anyone think the modern idea of economics is collapsing to the masses at an exponential level?

Benjamin Bailey
Benjamin Bailey

that's right, Marx agrees.
could you be more specific?
no idea what you're argument is here. if a commodity takes more average labor-time to reproduce, then yes, it will be more valuable then another, regardless of how many parts goes into wither commodity.

Nolan Watson
Nolan Watson

You didn't build the factory, you didn't amass the raw materials and machinery needed to create the product, you simply chose to trade your labor at a price you agreed upon and then decided you were worth more than you actually are, which is why all fucking commies should just be shot today to spare us the indignity of these threads in the future. Fuck off.

Jason Ramirez
Jason Ramirez

price is value
and how do you measure it?
price
I'm asking you how you measure value
price
you've said the same thing twice now, answer properly
price
just saying "price" doesn't explain how you measure value
I have to run away from this argument, faggot.

that's literally you, as soon as you were confronted with a very basic question.

James Russell
James Russell

The best place to start about Marx ideas of redistribution is the destruction of the family unit as how Marx has an obsession with quantifying human life so as to ironically make himself as bad as the capitalists he (((despises))) personally I think the communists just envy the capitalists and that is why international capitalism devolves into communism in the communist dialect. Quantify human existence without taking into consideration the very real material forces you can’t quanitfy

Attached: CF8E5FF2-565B-4BC8-9A37-194C46A586C2.jpg (396 KB, 1000x1500)

Bentley Rodriguez
Bentley Rodriguez

Yeah, it's called the fractional reserve banking ponzi scheme. And the international banking cartel. But don't worry, we'll keep that system afloat no matter how many of us have to die.

Hunter Williams
Hunter Williams

how do you argue against ad hominem? no u?

Elijah Martin
Elijah Martin

If this is the case, why should anyone care about the narrowly defined concept of “value” as described by Marx.
This, they seem to be saying it allowed Marx to predict the "The Laws of Motion of the Capitalist Mode of Production", which seems to essentially be the peaks and troughs of the market.
the modern idea of economics is collapsing to the masses
Rephrase this if you would, it doesn't make any sense to me.

Bentley Scott
Bentley Scott

making mud pies in my backyard have zero value even though I created them with "labor"

Gavin Bell
Gavin Bell

“Use labor” should be “use value” here.

Jason Nelson
Jason Nelson

the theory of exploitation

Better explained by the Pareto Principle, a statistical distribution pattern that routinely occurs in biology and other sciences. Many at the bottom, few at the top.

This pattern exhibits itself in economic circumstances because humans are still a biologically driven organism. Replace capitalism with socialism, you still get a few winners at the top, like Stalin, Mao, Kim, etc.

Marx and his followers deluded themselves thinking you can change man's nature.

Attached: 1480098454024.jpg (168 KB, 618x412)

Lincoln King
Lincoln King

Basado hermano.
Dab a los comunistas culiaos.

Levi Sanders
Levi Sanders

No we are seeing international capitalism transform into communism. Partially because convenience and partially because it’s necessary for more market control. The money system is unnatural.

Leo Mitchell
Leo Mitchell

Marx's LTV is a theory that in capitalist economies, value is determined by the average amount of unskilled labor that it takes to reproduce a commodity at a given time and place.

This is an idiotic misinterpretation of his theory. He stated that value is subjective and can be quantified based on economic considerations. I.e., the proleteriat engage in all the, obviously, valuable economic activity while the bourgeoisie parasitically live off their labor.

So the proleteriat should own the means of production not only because it's more economically viable but also because they have a right to the property via occupancy and use, the rightful property standard, not landlord property ownership.

You imbecile, lrntoread

Attached: doomer.png (347 KB, 1200x1200)

Dylan Scott
Dylan Scott

a verb cant be (((jewish))).... can it? shit am i DOING JEWISHNESS RIGHT NOW?

Jaxon Myers
Jaxon Myers

Why? Now you're ignoring efficiency. It seems like a terrible system, OP. Like union labor. The weak should fear the strong. What you're describing is an affront to nature.

Angel Butler
Angel Butler

You didn't build the factory, you didn't amass the raw materials and machinery needed to create the product
no, other workers did, with their labour.
you simply chose to trade your labor at a price you agreed upon
no, a worker is forced to enter this "agreement" since there's literally no option, he had to or he faced homelessness and starvation, just to name a few things that forced him to enter this "agreement"
and then decided you were worth more than you actually are, which is why all fucking commies should just be shot today to spare us the indignity of these threads in the future
how do you figure a worker decides his labour is worth more than it actually is?

Jonathan Fisher
Jonathan Fisher

you mean like raw materials and labor-saving technology? their values are likewise determined by the average amount of labor-time it takes it produce them. and no, the theory recognizes supply and demand.
since Marx is using "value" in a specific technical sense, the goods that it doesn't purport to explain don't have "value" in the same sense.
it doesn't have as much use-value, yes. that's not the point.

Zachary Barnes
Zachary Barnes

Id start by making an argument that doesn’t involve why cutting your sons penis off makes you morally superior to anyone. But that would be ad hominem

Christian Carter
Christian Carter

I don't know what to say besides that this is a horrible misreading of Capital. Sorry.

Henry Reyes
Henry Reyes

imagine being this deranged.

Owen Cooper
Owen Cooper

I know what you mean, but only because I'm familiar with the subject. You're being intentionally obtuse.

Just say "the only real cost of production of anything is labor."

Boom

Colton Powell
Colton Powell

Okay but if you're acknowledging that however much people are willing to pay for products and services is the price, and the price is determined by supply and demand, than the use value and exchange value are irrelevant. If the exchange or use value of something isn't the same as its market price, then the "value" doesn't matter. You can say food and water have a high use value, but that doesn't matter since the supply and demand in the market determine how much people are willing to give for it.

given perfect balance of supply and demand, the price will be it's value
What is this "perfect balance?" How do you attain a "perfect balance" for products like cars or skateboards?

Marx explained that for most products their price oscilates a bit above and below its value
My example of water refutes this statement. Water has a high use value, but its price is low. Same with most food. It seems like Marx and marxists just use the LTV as an overcomplicated attempt to explain economics. The "value" of something doesn't matter because the price is what people actually pay for something in the real world.

Christian Robinson
Christian Robinson

Ok I'll make it easier. Let's say I charge a developer to make an app for $3000. I then turn around and sell a million copies of the product for 1 dollar each. Was his labor worth 1 million dollars? What if for some reason I can't sell it, does that mean his labor was worthless?

Value is determined by the market reacting to the value proposition of a company.

Joshua Turner
Joshua Turner

If you ivite me over for a nice tall glass of onions do i own your house? Im occupying it.

Levi Wood
Levi Wood

So we should let niggers own the means of production?

Just kidding, we all know that most niggers don’t have jobs.

Matthew Smith
Matthew Smith

Shouldn't you provide an argument for the labor theory of value first?

Jonathan Bennett
Jonathan Bennett


thats not ad hominem thats a slippery slope

Ryan Jones
Ryan Jones

how is the theory of exploitation falsified by the Pareto Principle? it's just a theory of where profit originates in capitalist economies.
it's not a system. it's a descriptive theory of the capitalist mode of production.

Noah Russell
Noah Russell

It assumes economics is a zero sum game. There is not a fixed amount of wealth that the rich are "stealing" from the poor.

Sebastian Sanchez
Sebastian Sanchez

Big tits are better than all above arguments. FACT.

Kayden Harris
Kayden Harris

Bump for limit because I don't care about this particular philosophy of what is probably some guy who died decades before I was born and had no comprehension of the modern world.

Grayson Wilson
Grayson Wilson

the proletariat should own the means of production
Okay so who’s owns the proletariats ownership of the means of production?
You haven’t solved anything, you’ve just redefined the problem working within the retarded dialect of Marxism. Prole vs bourgeoisie. Then you have politburo and non politburo. Who’s the fall guy for this transition. Seems to be small business owners ie the top of the working class to the middle class, all those who relationship relies on a beneficial relationship with both the proletariat and bourgeoisie
oh shit.jpg the natsoc is more well versed in communism then I am

Attached: AFC5EBE3-35C7-445C-8B87-EC4B6EA2E37A.jpg (442 KB, 800x600)

William Nelson
William Nelson

HELLO MY NAME IS LANDON JAMES POWELL, I AM A HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNIST.

Justin Peterson
Justin Peterson

Just say "the only real cost of production of anything is labor."
Marx doesn't think this. he thinks that the ultimate value of production costs are determined by labour.

Lucas Russell
Lucas Russell

you did not make it easier, and I don't know why you ditched your diamond argument.
please stop being retarded and answer me this very, very simple question that I asked you three times already:
how would you finding a diamond as opposed to mining it be an argument against the LTV?

Lincoln Sullivan
Lincoln Sullivan

Your the one sliding

Alexander Watson
Alexander Watson

Marx doesn't think this. he thinks that the ultimate value of production costs are determined by labour.
I should clarify, the value of the INPUTS OF PRODUCTION are determined by labour. not the value of their costs (that's a confusing way to put it).

Parker Walker
Parker Walker

Fucking stupid leaf. It really is always leaf posters.

Karl marx was the biggest hypocrite faggot that ever existed.

Guy never worked a fucking day in his life, yet whined and bitched about the working class being unfairly treated.

Meanwhile this fucking little cunt had a housemaid that he never once paid. Not even a cent.

He was a a remarkable specimen of human excrement. And his stupid fucking ideas have killed millions.

Yet there are STILL people who prop this guy up as more than a fuckin retard drunk with a motorboat as a mouth.

Just blows my mind.

Bentley Perez
Bentley Perez

Checkm he’s here

Attached: D15AF33C-96EE-4679-A096-6FD619ABB6C0.jpg (65 KB, 600x600)

Jason Carter
Jason Carter

No competition = no evolution.

Connor Turner
Connor Turner

yeah and I'm sure the arguments are forthcoming.

Zachary Lopez
Zachary Lopez

2 geniuses invent and build a time machine. Total labor time : 1 week.

2 McDonalds nigger employees cook 200 burgers. Total labor time : 1 week.

Which have more value ? A time machine or 200 burgers ?

Dominic Powell
Dominic Powell

you're supposed to read the thread before posting in it.

Wyatt White
Wyatt White

That mcdonalds is closing soon.

Juan Thomas
Juan Thomas

Could you say a few words on "the laws of motion of the capitalist mode of production"?
It seems to explain capitalist economic crises as products of overproduction:
Capitalist economic crises are always crises of overproduction of commodities
and yet I don't see how this relates to the crash of 1929.

Chase Kelly
Chase Kelly

So what is the theory of value, nigger ?

Camden Davis
Camden Davis

Marx's theories are the human peak of pseudo-intellectualism, it's so full of air it could power a ventilator for the rest of eternity, so full of shit it could fill the entire world' septic tanks and still overflow, so meaningless one could find more meaning and truth in the most basic child's book available in the market, so wrong literally any ideology even the stupidest one has performed better than the ideas of Marx's. His only legacy is a one of total failure and embarassement

Attached: hilosophy-classic-s-p-karl-marx-its-okay-being-a-23122735.png (120 KB, 500x913)

Joseph Russell
Joseph Russell

I'm not sure how the argument missed you I made that very plain and clear. The point is it's not how much time is put into it but it can be said that it is how the time is used to oversimplify the argument.

How can you not understand the argument but then agree with one of the statements or implications of the argument?

Commodity A is made up of parts that take little time and effort to create, commodity B isn't and is just made up of one item that took a long time. The sum of time put into each item used in making commodity A after combination is worth more than B. Yet commodity B took more time and effort than each individual commodity used to produce the, final product if you will, that is commodity A.

Thus if A has more value than B it isn't the time but how the time was used or how the commodity was created, by combination of values, that creates a higher value. Thus it isn't simply time but how the time is used and/or how the commodity is made. If B still has more value then that undermines time saving measures employed in A. Measures that could benefit workers considering the capitalist desire to extend the working day.

Carter Gutierrez
Carter Gutierrez

That is exactly what I am asking.

Whats the point of marxian value, because I don’t want a musket. I can think of many things with more use value than “value”. Marxian value also doesn’t seem to explain value attached to land very well.

It seems like it describes the value of stuff you buy on Etsy or at the swapm meet.

Please explain, because I don’t see the point.

Carson Nguyen
Carson Nguyen

I mean, I can't really summarize three volumes of something in a few words, sorry. but the basic idea is that, if the LTV is true, it explains the underpinnings of how labor-time is apportioned in capitalist economies, and ultimately implies a series of predictions that explain capitalist crises.

Landon Harris
Landon Harris

Capitalist economic crises are always crises of overproduction of commodities
and yet I don't see how this relates to the crash of 1929.
If that's what Marxism teaches then it is a lie. Capitalist economic crashes occur because banks greedily over-extend themselves when making loans.
Why do both capitalism and communism seem to benefit the same group of people? Hmmm....

Attached: hmmmm.jpg (73 KB, 741x568)

Hudson Rogers
Hudson Rogers

For discust labor theory of value Jow Forums first have to know what is it about.
Clearly they dont, they only know that is something left. This is why we are seeing in this treath people talking about communism, the gulags, politics, and not the subject matters

Leo Clark
Leo Clark

if the LTV is true
It's not, ergo Marx's conception of capitalism was a falsehood, and probably a purposeful one at that.

Camden Thompson
Camden Thompson

Commodity A is made up of parts that take little time and effort to create, commodity B isn't and is just made up of one item that took a long time. The sum of time put into each item used in making commodity A after combination is worth more than B. Yet commodity B took more time and effort than each individual commodity used to produce the, final product if you will, that is commodity A.
no. if the product includes all of the individual parts, then the time it took to produce those parts is included in the value of the commodity itself. if these parts combined take more time on average to produce than another commodity that isn't made of multiple parts.

Austin Wright
Austin Wright

It is but a factor, dipshit.

Attached: Bitches-dont-know-my-cock.jpg (10 KB, 420x300)

Eli Ward
Eli Ward

the theory doesn't suggest that people will necessarily want things because they are more valuable (which is why use-value is distinguished from value in the theory). the point of the theory, again, is to explain the laws of motion of the capitalist economy, which ultimately imply the system's unsustainability.

Matthew Cook
Matthew Cook

you'd have to explain how the LTV is false.

Isaac Gutierrez
Isaac Gutierrez

we are discusing ltv. Please dont be a retard

Asher Allen
Asher Allen

"Exploitation" is a mirage. Marx wanted to see a bourgeois class systematically exploiting a proletariat due to a flawed system that could be replaced with a better one.

But there are no inherent "flaws" in the original system...it's just an accurate expression of human and biological will, so the "better" system is itself inherently flawed.

Owen Perez
Owen Perez

Occupancy and use property rights arise from the labor theory of value, rather.

Mason Torres
Mason Torres

exploitation isn't an ethical concept for Marx. or, rather, the ethics of it have no bearing on whether it's a valid theory.

John Morales
John Morales

Can you see without eyes?
Can you speak without lies?
I wanna drink from your naked fountain
I can drown your sorrows
I'm gonna burn, burn you to life now
Out of the chains that bind you

Attached: 83BB6B34-09BB-4654-85C5-83216E0A8C29.jpg (372 KB, 1247x865)

Alexander Taylor
Alexander Taylor

if they cant respond to the theory with proper arguments, they risk being destroyed by them. just like how they destroyed sjws.

Gabriel Garcia
Gabriel Garcia

That is core beliefs, and that is why a lot of people oppose him.

Liam Peterson
Liam Peterson

Did you explain how it's true yet?

Landon Barnes
Landon Barnes

Can you see just like a child?
Can you see just what I want?
Can I bring you back to life?
Are you still alive?
Burn, burn, burn
Burn your wicked garden down
Burn, burn, burn
Burn your wicked garden to the ground

Attached: 7F94DDE7-34A2-4E56-B52A-44CB897AC5DC.jpg (61 KB, 505x665)

Connor Ross
Connor Ross

Okay so in the scenario I lay down you would agree then that commodity A has more value then commodity B. Consequently it was the act of combining the smaller values to make a larger value and not the time put into making each individual valued good, that made commodity A more valuable than commodity B.

So here we have an example of a commodity being more valuable than another commodity through the actions of the maker. Not only on the time the maker spent into making the commodity one on how they use that time. Which is somewhat tied into what I brought up earlier how will the time be defined?

David Fisher
David Fisher

Simply put, value is subjective.
Value = The good or service X exchanged for the good or service Y that Person A and Person B voluntarily agreed on.
Now fuck off commie

Robert Wright
Robert Wright

Attached: 17E84372-7B20-44E1-9E67-E9FDA71728B0.jpg (279 KB, 1191x670)

Michael Ward
Michael Ward

Attached: e8b598357a1c31ae4e0aca07584d300ae2f66965d787ad349241fe78125f223a.png (23 KB, 817x600)

Ian Butler
Ian Butler

but on how*

Austin Ramirez
Austin Ramirez

Consequently it was the act of combining the smaller values to make a larger value and not the time put into making each individual valued good, that made commodity A more valuable than commodity B.
no, it's that the time to produce each of the components that go into commodity A is higher than the time it takes to reproduce commodity B.

Kayden Diaz
Kayden Diaz

It seems to ignore non-labor factors that contribute to a commodities value, for one. That's kind of a huge flaw.

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Disable AdBlock to view this page

Confirm your age

This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.

Enter Exit

About Privacy

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.

Accept Exit