Find a flaw

It's written by a jewish unemployed layabout who conveniently ignores human nature and motivation.

what's your argument against the labor theory of value?

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 45K)

>Auschwitz is a more profound refutation of Marxism than the demise of the Soviet Union. The Russian Revolution would never have occurred if Lenin had waited around for Marx's heroic proletariat and objective economic conditions. Although profoundly influenced by Marx, the Soviet state was actually founded upon the Leninist-Stalinist belief in the decisive import of elite leadership.
>If so, then perhaps the Leninist-Stalinist revision of Marx's "class" view of history opens the possibility that his theories may yet be correct - but unrealized. The final blow to Marxism, however, as a comprehensive understanding of human history, was delivered by Hitler's Germany. Auschwitz was the culmination of Nazism's historical refutation of Marx.
>Although Marx radicalized the assumptions of economic materialism, the Judeocide refuted the economic conception of man common to both capitalism and Marxism. The economic conception of man was decisively defeated at Auschwitz because the Judeocide cannot be explained on the basis of economic rationalism.

Attached: Mitchell Heisman.jpg (250x298, 9K)

Don't have a source but I believe that Marx once wrote to Engles, something along the lines of: the sales of this book (capital) won't even pay for the cigars that he smoked writing it

I don't anticipate that I'll persuade you so, and there are far better sources. I would recommend you do your own research on the topic. Many folks have written on this. I think Marx makes many good points, and Frankly I enjoyed his book, but ultimately I disagree with many of his claims. I don't think that the amount of labour "contained" in a product or service (commodity) is necessarily even proportionally related to what marx would call exchange value. I think that this is a major flaw in his analysis, especially considering this having been established is rather crucial to his argument

You

>I would recommend you do your own research on the topic.
yeah i'm pretty familiar with the literature surrounding this stuff, which is why i'm interested in your claim:
>I don't think that the amount of labour "contained" in a product or service (commodity) is necessarily even proportionally related to what marx would call exchange value.

Except he doesn't ignore it at all. He writes about it frequently and debunks the idea of a static, unchanging human nature, and BTFOing social darwinism. Hell, even Darwin himself thought it was retarded:

>He pointed out how, in numberless animal societies, the struggle between separate individuals for the means of existence disappears, how struggle is replaced by co-operation, and how that substitution results in the development of intellectual and moral faculties which secure to the species the best conditions for survival. He intimated that in such cases the fittest are not the physically strongest, nor the cunningest, but those who learn to combine so as mutually to support each other, strong and weak alike, for the welfare of the community. "Those communities", he wrote, "which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring" (2nd edit., p. 163). The term, which originated from the narrow Malthusian conception of competition between each and all, thus lost its narrowness in the mind of one who knew Nature.

The author.

Well, then you are already familiar with the reasons why I am not persuaded by Marx. For just once example, I think that you can substitute just about anything for "labour", using Marx's reasoning and his subsequent arguments to create an "x" theory of value that is almost identical. For another example I think that his handling of what he calls surplus value is inadequate, but admittedly at times I felt like it just didn't even make sense, so I guess I may not have understood what he meant.

I find supply and demand to be a far more convincing model of explanation of how value is determined.

>For just once example, I think that you can substitute just about anything for "labour", using Marx's reasoning and his subsequent arguments to create an "x" theory of value that is almost identical
why?
>For just once example, I think that you can substitute just about anything for "labour", using Marx's reasoning and his subsequent arguments to create an "x" theory of value that is almost identical. For another example I think that his handling of what he calls surplus value is inadequate, but admittedly at times I felt like it just didn't even make sense, so I guess I may not have understood what he meant.
you'd have to expand on either of these claims for me to comment on them.
>I find supply and demand to be a far more convincing model of explanation of how value is determined.
well, the theory isn't at odds with supply and demand, w/r/t its determination of market prices.

If we assume that the value of a commodity is rooted in the time put in by the worker. What about if you have an item A made by the worker which is made up of smaller items that all took little time to make but are combined to form A. Now compare item A to item B which took a lot of time to make but not as much as A when combined.

Thus the emphasis is not on the amount of time but how the time of the worker was used. Now imagine if the worker's time is dictated by the employer wouldn't then the employer be creating the value not the worker?

Historical materialism is objectively retarded

It doesn’t account for novelty

Communism is the economic system of the Nigger

>Find a flaw
History

the prose is dry

>Labor Theory of Value (LTV, Marx's interpretation) utilizes an ad hoc hypothesis and circular logic to arrive at a predetermined conclusion
>LTV (via "congealed labour time") prioritizes the contribution of labor's input to a good or service
>but fails to justify this prioritization over any other commodity input that fluctuates in value and availability
>no LTV, no exploitation
>no exploitation, no justification for a systemic overhaul, e.g. revolution
>the dynamics of capitalism are better explained by the Subjective Theory of Value and Marginalism
>and outcome inequalities by the inescapable statistical phenomenon of Zipf's Law
>which even manifests itself in linguistics, geology and astronomy, demonstrating it to be a universal circumstance

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx_and_the_Close_of_His_System
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipf's_law

Attached: Carl Menger.jpg (270x360, 18K)

> Find a flaw
> Leaf flag
Kill yourself dog fucker.

Too much linen, not enough coats.

Marx was anti semitic and homophobic
Based

its not in the original german.

yeah, ancillary products a part of the production process contribute to the final product's value, on the theory. so A would have a higher value than B, according to the theory.
>Now imagine if the worker's time is dictated by the employer wouldn't then the employer be creating the value not the worker?
doesn't really matter who's enabling the value. the question is what determines the value.
nothing to do with Capital.
i assume you mean novelty will influence demand and subsequently market price. the theory doesn't deny this.
the theory isn't ad-hoc, as it generates testable predictions of novel fact.

Communism has failed and resulted in mass death everywhere it’s been attempted

Based.

/thread

Attached: FUCK CAPITAL.jpg (1200x1200, 178K)

The existence of Veblen goods and the unmeasurable value of novelty to an individual is completely unaccounted for. I don’t believe it accounts for the quality of goods either. Producing garbage doesn’t create value.

I give you 10 seconds to fins a way out

His cental banking ideas (no wealth, all debt money based on commodaties and global planning, centralized incomce tax) are what you faggots call "Capitalism" but it's not.

Attached: usury free economics.jpg (279x445, 20K)

How can we use a theory to derive value if you have a variable like novelty, which completely ignores what was put into the produced good but instead relies solely on the value association of the one seeking the good.

>testable predictions of novel fact

Those "testable predictions" are better explained by other, more coherent theories, however.

Just because geocentrism generates accurate results in some circumstances is no reason to promote it over heliocentrism, which is accurate in all.

Well when you say A would have a higher value than B you're implicitly saying that the value is determined by other things, in this case human reason of combination, not simply by the effort put into making it.

So if what determines the value can rest upon the will of the employer, whether or not he chooses to tell the employee to make A or B. Then doesn't it matter who determines the value?

easy... time is relative

Also, Marx’s historical materialism influenced his LTV. He never would have defined his LTV w/o a historical materialistic perspective. A theory built upon a faulty foundation is tilted from the get go.

enabling the value rather

Right, but LTV is an objectivist theory not a relativist theory. If it was relativist it wouldn’t define a labor hour as a value unit

any last words?

fpbp like 95% of the time

Specfically a Rothschild. Not even kidding, look it up. Don't worry though, just another coincidence to add on to the tally.

Get Out

It's really easy to critique capitalism desu

>The existence of Veblen goods and the unmeasurable value of novelty to an individual is completely unaccounted for.
these things impact market price, not natural price, which is what the theory is concerned with.
>I don’t believe it accounts for the quality of goods either. Producing garbage doesn’t create value.
on Marx's definition of a commodity, it must have a use-value.
because novelty impacts market price. the LTV isn't a theory of market prices.
>Those "testable predictions" are better explained by other, more coherent theories, however.
if you can provide a theory that predicts the same things as the LTV, i'd be interested. as far as i know, neoclassical theories either don't predict the same things, or don't provide a non-ad-hoc explanation for them.
>Well when you say A would have a higher value than B you're implicitly saying that the value is determined by other things, in this case human reason of combination, not simply by the effort put into making it.
i don't see why. if value=labor-time and labor-time is imputed in ancillary products, then increased value makes sense.
>So if what determines the value can rest upon the will of the employer, whether or not he chooses to tell the employee to make A or B. Then doesn't it matter who determines the value?
i don't see why. the LTV isn't making a claim about who deserves value, so.

>Rothschild

seems really hard for you to imagine that people like that exist outside USA? May I suggest that you learn, peasant?

>theory of a complex system
>modeled in 12 yo level math

Marx is popular among retards because it's so simple.

The Labour Theory of Value is hilariously wrong.

Sauce?

...

And please... Marx should have been lad to rest a long time ago, including his theories, that seem attractive to peasants

>i don't see why
How can't you? Can you not foresee the conclusions of accepting these premises? Using my hypothetical the onus no longer rests on the worker but on the employer and how he decides to dictate to the employer how the time should be used. Someone can then use the LTV to then celebrate capitalism and praise employers rather than criticize it.

how he decides to dictate to the employee*

i think you're confusing the LTV for an ethical theory. it doesn't assign praise or blame to workers or employers.

Let go Germany rather... that is almost Marx, is it not? Islamists welcome. And yet with all the criminal acts that they ring, I say Germans may not carry knives.
Are you insane Germany?

Don't forget they foted mega left green eu

It wasn't written by pic related

Attached: AdamSmith.jpg (1456x2173, 1.36M)

It is settled then. Germans are fucking done.

gazetawarszawska.net/judaizm-islam/1409-marx

Economics is a math field first and foremost we have proofs that explain how these variables interact with one another. He makes claims with no hard evidence

As if you are any better with your weapon forbidding bullshit country

I think it's implicitly assigning the praise to the worker since it's usually the worker putting in the time to make the product. Especially at the time the book was written.

But we're discussing the validity of this theory I just have to disprove the key tenets of this theory.

Do we fuck Germany, do we fuck France, do we fuck England? Someone has to pay after all

>I think it's implicitly assigning the praise to the worker since it's usually the worker putting in the time to make the product. Especially at the time the book was written.
even if this is true, the validity of the theory doesn't turn on any implicit moral motivation.
>But we're discussing the validity of this theory I just have to disprove the key tenets of this theory.
yeah that's what i'm looking for.

It said that the most industrialised countries, especially Britain, would be the first to rise up in revolution. Nope, it was one of the least industrialised countries in Europe, Russia.

Value of commodity=time spent making it. I think I was able to debunk that so far by saying it is how the time was used.

If more capitalists used LTV like I did I doubt you or others on the left would promote the LTV.

I hope you are not female... this could be right misunderstood

>even if this is true, the validity of the theory doesn't turn on any implicit moral motivation.
Don't disagree.

Pisses all over people who at least provide a good or service while completely ignoring bankers who do nothing but manipulate currency

Sandpaper dildos. Labor theory of value btfo.
sage

Attached: 1532881573206.png (644x598, 120K)

>If more capitalists used LTV like I did I doubt you or others on the left would promote the LTV.
This comment of mine was an additional comment I wanted to mention earlier but forgot. I don't want to dwell on that because as you said the LTV's validity doesn't rest on it's consequences.

>Karl Marx
>Volume One (because capitalism :D)
>Orange

Obviously the LTV. I've seen some pretty sad attempts of people trying to empirically prove it.

>Value of commodity=time spent making it. I think I was able to debunk that so far by saying it is how the time was used.
how? you just pointed out that, all other things equal, a product that involves more ancillary products in its production will be more valuable than another. this is true on the theory.
are sandpaper dildos a commodity?

fuck off all of u. we need to tell Germans NO NO MORE merkel or any of the like forced islam on europeans no moan

Look at the votes Germany last election
Insanity

>are sandpaper dildos a commodity?
No because no one gives a shit how much labor went into a product if it's crap. LTV btfo. Value is subjective.

>No
great, so the theory doesn't purport to apply to them

eure Harzer werden irgendwann auch nimmer happy sein, wenn das geld fehlt

Marx was a Satinist.

Fiat money is my argument against it. Fiat money isn't produced by capitalists hiring labourers and paying wages for some quantity of abstract socially necessary labour time. Fiat money can be created from nothing by a central bank.

Marx was a Satinist. Thats a flaw.

I wouldn't trade you anything for a cup of water even though it's essential to life. My reasons are that you're a commie and I don't trust you or need it. If you're selling water It has zero value to me. This is an objective truth. There is no inherent value in any object. Value is determined by how much individuals want something.

You are right. And that is the funny thing too

FUCK U GERMANS. Want me to declare u the enemies of the free world? You deserve it

>The Earth is flat.
>Find a flaw.

youtube.com/watch?v=gQdyb2L84_I&list=PL7nN2aF_iAEd2__xVXd3sLv7QrkU721u6&index=5&t=0s

See

Because the emphasis is on how the time was used. The "socially necessary labor" required to produce something itself is no longer of importance.

What matters then is the human element, the same phenomena that determine supply and demand in opposition to the LTV.

fiat currency isn't a freely reproducible good. the theory doesn't purport to explain such goods.
"value", on the theory, doesn't mean "how much someone wants something."
>Because the emphasis is on how the time was used. The "socially necessary labor" required to produce something itself is no longer of importance.
you haven't established this at all.

You're retarded and you should be shot. No one can help you. I forget that sometimes.
youtube.com/watch?v=Du3Q1XaeZf8

>fiat currency isn't a freely reproducible good
Yes it is. It can be created with the click of a button on a computer. Fiat currency has value, but is not produced with a labor value.

i gotchu senpai

Attached: 1552068721492.gif (800x667, 1.23M)

better book

Attached: BasicEconomics.jpg (788x1067, 117K)