How does the LTV explain pet rocks?
>>340283
Whose LTV? There are a lot of differences in what constitutes "labour" between Smith, Ricardo and Marx.
>>340313
>There are a lot of differences in what constitutes "labour" between Smith, Ricardo and Marx.
Not afaik. Could you illustrate with some passages which show they defined labor differently?
>>340330
Contribution to a critique of political economy on complex and simple labour as socially abstract labours.
Capital 1 on social labour, ie: abstract labour. Capital 1 on social necessity (realisation). Capital 1 on the commodity being sold being labour power the capacity to labour, rather than labour itself, solving the origin of surplus value in the difference between sustenance and worked hours.
Capital 1 isn't that long mate. You'd want to look for: social necessity (ie: the commodity actually being realised in circulation), labour (exertion) versus labour power (potential to exert), the determination of the wage by class struggle.
Pet rocks are mostly marketing costs, but there's obviously a real demand for such a commodity because they're realised. Compare to soda which is reliant on marketing for realisation, rather than production.
>>340350
Capitalists today don't answer demand, they create it. If the entirety of market and politics were just about answering demands, then growth would slow down immensely.
>>340364
I'm pretty sure this is in volume 3, but it is definitely in Mandel and Baran & Sweezy and II Rubin for that matter.
Kind of a distraction from the topic of the constitution of an LTV though.
Well pet rocks were a fad that died in popularity soon as they came about, so probably not too much
>>340371
It is, but you were the one who brought it up.
I've read Marx's analysis of Smith and Ricardo think labor is, but I've also read Smith and Ricardo, and I find no distinction between their conception of what labor is than Marx's...*today* labor is a lot more broad of a term (being an investor is considered labor), but back then, it wasn't. The reason their theories differ from Marx is mainly because they don't factor labor as socially average for production, they look at each thing's value according to the labor that went into it.
>>340385
In a general sense, though, the value of something has a lot to do with its brand. You can have two objects of similar quality, but one with a better brand is worth thrice. Pet rocks were literally just brand
>>340386
Marx doesn't deconstitute the labour of the capitalist from the production process either, he just notes the difference between the labour contributing to the product, and the means of extracting surplus value which isn't to do with the capitalist's labour per se but their ownership of the means and tools.
I brought up realisation because unrealised commodities contain value-in-potentia, a key point of Marx's discussion of value is that it is a circulating flow, not a static property.
As you note, Marx is interested in the laws of motion of capital in general, not individual objects or capitals, except in the exposition of the argument to get to the general laws of motion.
>>340283
who is this ann boleynn
>labor theory of value
>>340412
Literally shitposting
>>340283
who is this jane seymour
>>340283
who is this catherine howard
>>340283
who is this catherine parr
>>340454
wow this is great
