Has someone read Marx's capital?
I'm really stuck so I hope someone can help me out:
Marx talks about exchange value ( for example 1 coat = 2 hammers which means that there is something that 1 coat and 2 hammers have in common, for they are exchangeable, and this common thing is labor which means that the amount of labor-time socially necessary to produce 1 coat, is equal to the amount of labor-time socially necessary to produce 2 hammers.
In the form commodity A = commodity B ( 1 coat = 2 hammers), commodity A is the relative value-form and commodity B is the equivalent form.
At a certain point, Marx talks in a polemic way about the mercantilists, the people who believe that the equivalent form (commodity B) determines the value of the relative use value (commodity B) and Marx says that this is completely ridiculous and laughable and he puts it like this: 1 coat (commodity A) is equal to 2 hammers (commodity B) but also equal to 2 pants (commodity C), 4 shirts (commodity D) and so on, and so on. So we see here that the relative use value (1 coat/commodity A) doesn't change, but the equivalent form does: the equivalent form is 2 hammers OR 4 shirts OR 2 pants. This means that the relative value-form determines the size of value of commodity B and not the other way around.
So here comes the problem:
When the the amount of labor-time socially necessary to produce commodity B increases, because of extern factors, the value of B increases too, for there is more labor-time necessary to produce comodity B and the labor-time socially necessary determines the value.
But because the value of commodity B (2 hammers) increases, the value of commodity A decreases:
the initial form:
1 coat = 2 hammers
current form, after the increased value of commodity B:
1 coat= 1 hammer
So the value of commodity A decreased, because of commodity B, which means that the equivalent form CAN determine the value of the relative value-form, right?
Help me out!
http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/
>>8161083
Don't read this hack
>>8161160
Smells like pork in here
The whole point of the value-form analysis stuff is that it's very abstract and hard to grasp your head around. Marx wasn't the first to tackle these problems... google "The Lauderdale Paradox".
The analysis of capitalist accumulation demands parallel determination of both exchange-value and use-value as expressions of two contradictory but interconnected processes.
Exchange-value represents the dialectical determination of the particular value of a commodity ONLY from the standpoint of a general capitalists rate of profit... use-value on the other hand represents the real determination of the social value of the same object from the standpoint of the invariant.
The value of an object depends on the way in which it is realized, the effects of its consumption, and, ultimately, the effects of realization in terms of invariant features of the social-reproductive process as a whole.
It is the interconnection of these two antagonistic "optimizing principles," two distinct invariants which is so problematic. Immediately, with respect to capitalist accumulation, the invariant is expressed by the general rate of profit of capitalist accumulation per se, an invariant which determines the value, for capitalist accumulation, of every object subjected to it.
It is the inability of capitalist accumulation to take concretized use value positively into account that is the formal aspect of capitalist depressions and breakdown crises. It is the contradiction between exchange values and use values that determines the effective rates of real capitalist accumulation, crises, and all the other principal phenomena of political economy.
>>8161081
Your use of use value doesn't make sense in reference to Marxs theories . If the value of b increases then athe value of all other commodities decreases in relation to it. But the value relations between all commodities that are not b stay the same in reference to each other. I don't get what the problem is.
>>8161277
>>8161277
>>8161277
>>8161277
the problem is: if the value of B increases. the value of A decreases. which means that A has become les valuable. But, as you said, when we compare commodity A to commodity C, the value of A stays the same, for C has neither increased nor decreased. How can one's value, in this particular case the value of commodity A, decrease and stay the same at the same time?
>>8161311
Exchange-value isn't embodied inside commodities, it's an external social process. The process of production can only make sense as a totality not when you try to understand exchanges of commodities between two people stranded on a theoretical Robinson Crusoes island.
Engels from the preface of The Poverty of Philosophy:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/pre-1885.htm
>At the same time other conclusions can be drawn, and have been drawn, from the Ricardian theory of value. The value of commodities is determined by the labour required for their production. But now it turns out that in this imperfect world commodities are sold sometimes above, sometimes below their value, and indeed not only as a result of ups and downs in competition. The rate of profit tends just as much to balance out at the same level for all capitalists as the price of commodities does to become reduced to the labour value by agency of supply and demand. But the rate of profit is calculated on the total capital invested in an industrial business. Since now the annual products in two different branches of industry may incorporate equal quantities of labour, and, consequently, may represent equal values and also wages may be at an equal level in both, while the capital advanced in one branch may be, and often is, twice or three times as great as in the other, consequently the Ricardian law of value, as Ricardo himself discovered, comes into contradiction here with the law of the equal rate of profit. If the products of both branches of industry are sold at their values, the rates of profit cannot be equal; if, however, the rates of profit are equal, then the products of the two branches of industry cannot always be sold at their values. Thus, we have here a contradiction, the antinomy of two economic laws, the practical resolution of which takes place according to Ricardo (Chapter I, Section 4 and 5 [4]) as a rule in favour of the rate of profit at the cost of value.
...
>>8161355
>But the Ricardian definition of value, in spite of its ominous characteristics, has a feature which makes it dear to the heart of the honest bourgeois. It appeals with irresistible force to his sense of justice. Justice and equality of rights are the cornerstones on which the bourgeois of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries would like to erect his social edifice over the ruins of feudal injustice, inequality and privilege. And the determination of value of commodities by labour and the free exchange of the products of labour, taking place according to this measure of value between commodity owners with equal rights, these are, as Marx has already proved, the real foundations on which the whole political, juridical and philosophical ideology of the modern bourgeoisie has been built. Once it is recognised that labour is the measure of value of a commodity, the better feelings of the honest bourgeois cannot but be deeply wounded by the wickedness of a world which, while recognising the basic law of justice in name, still in fact appears at every moment to set it aside without compunction. And the petty bourgeois especially, whose honest labour – even if it is only that of his workmen and apprentices – is daily more and more depreciated in value by the competition of large-scale production and machinery, this small-scale producer especially must long for a society in which the exchange of products according to their labour value is at last a complete and invariable truth. In other words, he must long for a society in which a single law of commodity production prevails exclusively and in full, but in which the conditions are abolished in which it can prevail at all, viz., the other laws of commodity production and, later, of capitalist production.
>>8161360
...
>First, continual deviations of the prices of commodities from their values are the necessary condition in and through which the value of the commodities as such can come into existence. Only through the fluctuations of competition, and consequently of commodity prices, does the law of value of commodity production assert itself and the determination of the value of the commodity by the socially necessary labour time become a reality. That thereby the form of manifestation of value, the price, as a rule looks somewhat different from the value which it manifests, is a fate which value shares with most social relations. A king usually looks quite different from the monarchy which he represents. To desire, in a society of producers who exchange their commodities, to establish the determination of value by labour time, by forbidding competition to establish this determination of value through pressure on prices in the only way it can be established, is therefore merely to prove that, at least in this sphere, one has adopted the usual utopian disdain of economic laws.
>Secondly, competition, by bringing into operation the law of value of commodity production in a society of producers who exchange their commodities, precisely thereby brings about the only organisation and arrangement of social production which is possible in the circumstances. Only through the undervaluation or overvaluation of products is it forcibly brought home to the individual commodity producers what society requires or does not require and in what amounts. But it is precisely this sole regulator that the utopia advocated by Rodbertus among others wishes to abolish. And if we then ask what guarantee we have that necessary quantity and not more of each product will be produced, that we shall not go hungry in regard to corn and meat while we are choked in beet sugar and drowned in potato spirit, that we shall not lack trousers to cover our nakedness while trouser buttons flood us by the million – Rodbertus triumphantly shows us his splendid calculation, according to which the correct certificate has been handed out for every superfluous pound of sugar, for every unsold barrel of spirit, for every unusable trouser button, a calculation which “works out” exactly, and according to which “all claims will be satisfied and the liquidation correctly brought about.” And anyone who does not believe this can apply to governmental chief revenue office accountant X in Pomerania who has checked the calculation and found it correct, and who, as one who has never yet been caught lacking with the accounts, is thoroughly trustworthy.
thanks for sharing this, very nice. But what about this: money is a way of exchange so we can equate commodity A to a certain amount of money for example 1 coat = 20 $. The 20 $ is the equivalent-form. Now, when inflation takes place, the 20 $ ( the equivalent form) increases which means that now 1 coat=25 $ so because of the increase of the equivalent form, the value of comomodity A - the coat - increases too. Now, the equivalent form determines the value ( although not the use value) of commodity A.
>>8161364
thanks for sharing this, very nice. But what about this: money is a way of exchange so we can equate commodity A to a certain amount of money for example 1 coat = 20 $. The 20 $ is the equivalent-form. Now, when inflation takes place, the 20 $ ( the equivalent form) increases which means that now 1 coat=25 $ so because of the increase of the equivalent form, the value of comomodity A - the coat - increases too. Now, the equivalent form determines the value ( although not the use value) of commodity A.
There's a reason Althusser says first timers should skip the commodities, especially those unacquainted with Hegel. Your problems stem directly from misapprehension of the dialectic, as a method, form of thought, and fact of historical time.
>>8161081
>Has someone read Marx's capital?
Masturbation is a much more enjoyable waste of time.
>>8162036
waste of time? Marx was a fucking erudite genius go study him you troglodyte!
>>8162141
back to tumblr sweetheart
marx has been proven wrong multiple times
>>8162027
so which Hegel pieces should I read to be able to understand the commodities?
>>8162154
The Phenomenology and the greater Logic would be a good place to start.
>>8162150
by whom? in regards to what? according to what metric? you're a cad.
>>8162150
Who hasn't? I'm not saying that his proletarian revolution ideas are great, but his abstract philosophy of economy and society are brilliant. Besides, he is a well-read 19-th century writer who solves dilemma's that Aristotle couldn't solve and while doing this, he paraphrases Shakespeare, Dante and Homerus. Also, Marx's influence on today's philosophers and even on today's society are huge, you can't ignore Marx or put him away as some pretentious charlatan.
>>8162027
I dont see how a knolwedge of Hegel is needed to realize that the statement "exchange value does not contain an atom of use value" is nonsense.
I dont see how anyone could agree that just because two things are of equal exchange value they must have something "in common" other than their exchange value that is determined by the price which equalizes a demand and supply function.
Dont get me started on the falling rate of profit, Marxian economics has been a lesson into the kind of bullshit people can buy (Marx himself was a genious for his time, an orthodox Marxist today has a pea for a brain).
And for folks trying to spin how Marx was speaking of the EVs as natural prices that nominal prices swing around there is little swinging that happens in modern times so assuming a theory is good in so far as it explains the current world the LTV is useless.
OP there is a reason noone gives a tit about Marxian economics, even the brightest minds of the day. Most known Marxists backpedal away from the LTV and say the modern economy has reached its imperialist monopoly stage where little Marxian economics is applicable although it does affect fundamentals (most of them unable to give an alternate explanation themselves, which has prompted some folks like Ronald Meek to write books explaining the background and possible modern adaptations of the LTV so the first response to it in the mainstream isn't "what are you smoking?").
Dont bother reading Hegel, unless you plan to read Kant first which if you don't I shouldn't even be wasting words on you. I've read your post and although I haven't gotten around to answering it (because smartphone typing) it is a good question.
Someone like you seems too logical and rigorous to enjoy let alone ever fully agree with Marx.
Id suggest Kant instead, anyway youll have to read him if you're planning to go hegel to marx.
If you have zero background in philosophy do NOT read anything more than hume and desecartes, start with the greeks if you like but not with the intention "this will help me understand Kant", it won't, see Kant's secod para in the prolegomena (when it starts after the notes, not sure if that is SS1) he clearly says that people for whom the history of philosophy is philosophy itself need to gtfo and drawing parallels between him and other philosophers has shit-all value in terms of elaborating or understanding his argument.
>>8162027
>Your problems stem directly from misapprehension of the dialectic, as a method, form of thought, and fact of historical time.
I'd like to see you respond to this in particular:
>Why is it that just because two things are of equal exchange value they must have something "in common" other than their exchange value itself (that is determined by the price which equalizes a demand and supply function)?
Im not even trying to back you into a corner, you'd probably change my life and opinion on Hegel if you can answer that.
>>8162576
Silly of me to assume you were reading Marx with the intention of checking practical applicability as opposed to internal consistency OP, sorry I got carried away.
Be warned it's a bitch to talk logical consistency with Hegelians.
>>8162610
logical consistency is a mirage
>>8162576
>I dont see how anyone could agree that just because two things are of equal exchange value they must have something "in common" other than their exchange value that is determined by the price which equalizes a demand and supply function.
>The difference between real value and exchange-value is based on a fact – namely, that the value of a thing differs from the so-called equivalent given for it in trade; i.e., that this equivalent is not an equivalent. This so-called equivalent is the price of the thing, and if the economist were honest, he would employ this term for “value in exchange.” But he has still to keep up some sort of pretence that price is somehow bound up with value, lest the immorality of trade become too obvious. It is, however, quite correct, and a fundamental law of private property, that price is determined by the reciprocal action of production costs and competition. This purely empirical law was the first to be discovered by the economist; and from this law he then abstracted his “real value,” i.e., the price at the time when competition is in a state of equilibrium, when demand and supply cover each other. Then, of course, what remains over are the costs of production and it is these which the economist proceeds to call “real value,” whereas it is merely a definite aspect of price. Thus everything in economics stands on its head. Value, the primary factor, the source of price, is made dependent on price, its own product. As is well known, this inversion is the essence of abstraction; on which see Feuerbach.
>Dont get me started on the falling rate of profit, Marxian economics has been a lesson into the kind of bullshit people can buy (Marx himself was a genious for his time, an orthodox Marxist today has a pea for a brain).
What Marx means by "profit" doesn't mean the type of "profit" (s’/(c + v)) that shows up on a corporate balance sheet, that doesn't even include the "wages bill" as part of capital invested, the full data in terms of presently-socially-necessary-labor-time-value / surplus-value theory of the capitals-system as totality simply doesn't exist... so trying to refute this tendency by "empirically refuting" with self reported capitalist metrics is missing the point.
Also a fall in the rate of return on industrial capital is a totally observable thing in the industrialized West which has been happening since the 70s. Check out Robert A. Peters (a graduate of the Wharton School of Business, so this isn't Marxist stuff) book from 1974 "Return On Investment"... its central thesis is that discounted cash inflows/outflows should be the measure of financial accomplishment. Return On Investment should be applied to a total enterprise e.g. all valuation is based on discounted future net receipts. If you view things like this it starts to make a little more sense. Industrial production has been becoming less and less profitable as we liberalize more.
>>8162670
I don't see how your post answers my first question though, it just goes on about ev being different from rv.
In volume 1 at the start when marx intoduces the notion of socially necesary labour being the same in goods with the same evs in that pre-captilasit society he has implied he is considering (i.e. he has not as of yet talked about evs drifting from rvs, a process which he unlike many modern Marxists actually bothered explaining), even in that context id still re-apply my question:
>Why is it that just because two things are of equal exchange value they must have something "in common" other than their exchange value itself (that is determined by the price which equalizes a demand and supply function)?
>>8162627
Are you one of those strange unfaithful to themselves human beings that would look at logicl trivialism (google) is plausible?
>>8162933
as*
>>8162933
>logical trivialism
the first move when faced with such an apparently irrefutable conundrum would be the historicizing operation: what is it about the present conditions of production that trivialism appear possible? and moreover, what does that appearance say about how we relate to each other and the world?
hegelian thinking will always exceed "logic" because the latter does not account for history.
>>8162576
>Why is it that just because two things are of equal exchange value they must have something "in common" other than their exchange value itself (that is determined by the price which equalizes a demand and supply function)?
Why do you question this? Isn't it obvious that that commodity A and commodity B have something in common, for they are equal? And this common thing is the amount of labor.
>>8162990
Are you the same guy? Im wondering how a hegelian approaches this given the stress he put on knowing hegel to understand the infamous first chapter.
And no I don't think it is obvious, I can elaborate more after I get up, hit me with a mail from a throwaway on my throwaway [email protected] though I would like that incase this thread dies which it might given lit is awfully quiet in marxist threads that decide to talk specifics and aren't polworthy.
I'm guessing you're not expecting me to disagree and leading me on so you can see and then dismantle my arguments, desu I can't see why you would say this is obvious.
You're mistaking what that "=" sign means when Marx is going through the simple forms of value. That equal sign is not representing that the magnitude of value in commodity A is equal to the magnitude of value in commodity B.
It's a relationship in which two commodities necessarily come together in a way in which one commodity can represent the value of another commodity.
When Marx says that 1 coat is the relative-form of value and that 20 yards of linen is the equivalent form, he is saying that the value of the use-value coat is being expressed, represented by the 20 yards of linen.
And you have to study the value-forms in their whole movement. The point is to determine why money is a necessity in generalized commodity exchange, given that only money can be the necessary universal equivalent form of value for a whole world of use-values.
You're getting the false impression that the "=" here allows the value relationship to run in both directions in the same manner, that 20 yards can equal 1 coat and 1 coat can equal 20 yards. The relationship is rather one of distinctive poles of value, with the value relationship being that a particular commodity's value can only be represented in the body of another commodity--which is what value is, a way in which particular commodities are related to one another.
The simple-form and later the expanded-value form are insufficient because of this polarity and directionality. These two things are what drive value towards its necessary expression in money, rather than in any assortment of accidentally related goods. With money, all commodities can be compared against one another immediately in their given price.
>>8163170
I will email you with the theory of exchange value of Aristotle in combination with Marx. Great to have Marxist discussions.
xoxo
>>8161311
No the value of b increases relative to all other commodities it's isn't hard to understand
>>8161081
So this is a famous Marxist economic theory?
>1 coat = 2 hammers which means that there is something that 1 coat and 2 hammers have in common, for they are exchangeable, and this common thing is labor
Pretty sure it is a demand. You can put a shitton of labor into a goodie that nobody needs and you will get nothing for it.
>>8164107
>Pretty sure it is a demand.
>You can put a shitton of labor into a goodie that nobody needs and you will get nothing for it.
o dear, please study Marx before thinking you can understand his theories. Let me explain it to you, for it seems that you don't have any knowledge about the great Marx. There are two values within a commodity: the use- value and the value. To paraphrase Marx: "The usefulness of a thing makes it a use-value.". When something has become a use-value, the amount of labor-time socially necessary to produce this commodity determines its value. When a commodity is not useful for mankind, it can never become a use-value. It can only become a use-value if useful labor is present. To paraphrase Marx again: 'When one waives the particular form of the productive activity - which means of its capacity and useful labor - the only thing that remains is expenditure of human labor power"
>>8163451
Great explanation, thanks. But the thing that I still don't understand is that one moment 1 coat = 20 yard linen and the next moment because of increasing productivity if the linen, 1 coat=15 yard linen. When we agree on the fact that the equivalent form is just a way if expressing the value of commodity A, we can also agree on the fact that the value of commodity A has decreased for there is less linen to trade with commodity A. So commodity A's value decreases because of extern factors? In this hypothetic situation, we only use the simple value-form where we only exchange one commodity with another. But even when we look at the complete value-form, where the equivalent consists of all the equivalents which can be exchanged against commodity A, there has been some changes going on. Because the equivalent form of linen has been changed from 20 linen to 15 linen the complete value-form - all the possible equivalents- has also changed, because the linen, on eof the many equivalent forms, has changed. Does this mean that the value of commodity A has changed?
You might be confused since Marx's theories are absurd and no economists take them seriously.
If after reading the webpage below you still don't understand LTV (top kek) then give up, go do something else: write poetry, play computer games, whatever. You'll know when you finally understand LTV (top kek) because you'll immediately think "this is complete bullshit".
http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LTV-FAQ.html
This other webpage explains things rather simply, but it contains links to more detailed refutations:
https://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/p/the-labour-theory-of-value-as-presented.html
For further reading I would check out Karl Marx and the Close of His System by Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk.
>>8164215
>Marginalism makes any more sense
>socialdemocracy21stcentury
ay
>>8161208
excuse me, we PoM do not appreciate your wealthist slurs
>>8164215
>Marx's theories are absurd and no economists take them seriously
>implying that we should take our contemporary capitalistic economist seriously
I seriously doubt your first statement. Let's take a look at the list of Marxian economists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marxian_economists
Also, your first statement implies that we shouldn;t take Marx seriously, so who should we take seriously? The capitalist economics who obstinately maintained that the economic growth of the 90's and even the beginning of the 21th century was so great that it was not possible that anything could go wrong and that it was absolutely impossible that the largest economic crisis since the late 20's would take place? Why don't we all focus on them! That'd be great! Let's focus on the majority of (liberal) capitalistic economics who caused the economic crisis of 2008.
i like your links, very interesting.
>he faces the problems of defining labour value in cases of joint production, where it is possible that the labour value of a commodity might be undefined, nil, or negative.
Very funny and adorable how this man tries to undermine Marx's theory. A very brave attempt, but now let's get serious and let's not pay attention to someone who claims to have read Marx's capital but clearly didn't understand a thing of it. Even in the situation of joint production, the production can be reduced to homogeneous abstract socially necessary labour time. In this way, we can determine the value. And this brings me to his earlier statement:
>Marx faces the problem of reducing all heterogeneous human labour to a homogeneous abstract socially necessary labour time unit, but does not properly explain how this happens
O dear, again a very adorable attempt. Let's take a look at Marx himself. To paraphrase him: 'Labor is the use of a simple labor, which is present in the physical organism of every human being, without any special human development'. This is what heterogeneous human labour is, and now that we know this, all heterogeneous human labour can be reduced to a homogeneous labor and once we know the abstract socially necessary labour time, we can determine the value. The reducing from heterogeneous labor to homogeneous labor doesn't need an explanation, for it is very clear.
>>8162610
>>8162933
I bet you believe in logical monism an think that classical logic is the correct one.
>>8165133
I don't know what you mean by correct so I can't answer.
>>8163451
>You're getting the false impression that the "=" here allows the value relationship to run in both directions in the same manner, that 20 yards can equal 1 coat and 1 coat can equal 20 yards.
I dont agree with you. In chapter 1, when Marx introduces the exchange value ant the relative value form and equivalent form, he literally says that when the value of commodity B increasis, because of increasing productivity, the value of commodity A decreases. He also says, after he has explained the simple relative value form and wants to introduce the complete value form, that 20 el linnen=1 coat can be flipped: 1 coat= 20 yard linen. I agree with you that commodity B is just the embodiment of commodity A, but they can be flipped and, even commodity B is just the appearence form, it can by changing, determines the value of commodity A.
>>8161081
>taking capital seriously
Of all the legitimate crap that Marx wrote, his economic writings are the crappiest and have been refuted a long, long time ago.
You can be a marxist/socialist ebin meme all you want, but dont try to base it on marx economic writings.
>>8165642
By definition, trivialists believe that the sentence "Trivial logics are incorrect" is true.
>>8165678
Yes?
>>8165652
How adorable, another guy who hasn't read capital but still thinks that somebody in this world would be happy to hear his pretentious, mistaken views. A-D-O-R-A-B-L-E! I'm telling ya. Now, let's be honest: have you actually read capital? And if you have: are you smart enough to understand it? Or was it just too hard for you ( that's not a shame, it was also too hard for Winston Churchill) and now you're trying to blame it all on Marx's 'crappy' writings. Now tell me, which substantive points of capital have been refuted? And by whom? Don't talk shit and if Marx is too hard for you, why don't you try to read Harry Potter instead! Other reasons why Marx is a genius, see my other post:
>>8162186
>>8165652
>You can be a marxist/socialist ebin meme all you want, but dont try to base it on marx economic writings.
>implying that someone can be a marxist without having read capital
no comment.
>>8165652
>his economic writings are the crappiest and have been refuted a long, long time ago
You = clueless moron
>>8161263
>http://davidharvey.org/reading-capital/
Marx's major error was that the State cannot equalize value, since the supply at any given moment is finite, and demand can exceed that amount, and demand for a limited product causes a higher value.
>>8162990
Or the 'thing in common' is the subjective valuation between buyer and seller regarding their respective goods. They've determined an equivalence in value, end of story.
>>8165642
>if you believe that trivial logics are incorrect
I dont know what you mean by incorrect so i cannot answer
>>8165733
>Implying everyone that reads capital does so and comes out agreeing with everything Marx said in it.
>>8164187
The exchange value of commodity a has changed relative to the exchange value of commodity b--mutatis mutandis, the exchange values of all commodities have changed relative to commodity b. The socially necessary labor time imbued in commodity a has not changed, and the alteration in commodity b in this regard has had no effect on commodity a.
>>8164107
>Pretty sure it is a demand.
Nah bro, not sure if you're trolling but modern economists would consider that view equally retarded. Consensus is that prices are determined by both demand and supply while a theory of some kind of natural price that this demand/supply price revolves around is not really relevant anymore.
Supply and demand themselves (and it gets a bit complicated here if you want to dissect things as much as Marx did) are determined by the willingness and ability to buy/sell, the willingnes bit usually being linked with utility. That's the way it's usually spun but quoting a marxian author vaguely:
The components of price in moden economics are largely considered to just be payments to different means of production, the question of how a means of production creates this price is irrelevant as such.
>>8165798
that's not what I'm implying: all I'm saying, is that it is not possible for one to be a marxist without having read capital. And if you have read capital, and you don't agree with Marx all the time, you can still be a marxist. But I think it is very hard to present yourself as a follower of a certain ideology, for example marxism, for it is almost impossible for some one to agree 100 % with the certain ideology.
>>8165820
>ideology is like an opinion you can be in agreement with
o bb gurl u r in over ur hed
>>8165829
moron. Are you implying that if someone calls him or herself a marxist, he or she should agree with everyhting Marx ever said?
>>8165785
nope. Let's look at the comparison of Aristotle:
5 benches = 1 house
Do you really think that the subjective valuation of the two commodities is equally high??
>>8165833
Don't you think that if he thought he'd disagree on Marx's ideas, he should read them, perhaps? And then, after reading them and after studying them, he can maybe tell his opinion
>>8165854
No, not at all. I am 'implying' you don't understand the contextual meaning of the term 'ideology'.
>>8165859
If I want to sell my house for five benches, yes, obviously.
>>8165859
There's no exchange (hence no price) without an agreement in subjective valuation.
>>8165869
what is there not to understand about?
>>8165885
You're illiterate.
>>8165881
>>8165873
I understand what you're saying, but when we use your terms of value, the only thing we get is a subjective value. Look at the following situation:
some one wants so sell his house for 3 benches and another person wants to pay 3 benches for the house (keep the comparison of Aristotle in mind 5 benches=1 house). In this particular situation, 3 benches are equal to 1 house, but this is just a subjective value that occasionally occurs. What this means, is that the person who wants to sell his house has got ripped off, because he sold his house for 3 benches, while the socially value - determined by the socially necessary amount of labor to produce a commodity - is higher: the socially values shows that 1 house=5 benches.
>>8165893
Who's illiterate?! You were the one who said that one can be a marxist, but one should never read capital. Troglodyte!
>>8165778
This post is nonsensical
>>8165909
>while the socially value - determined by the socially necessary amount of labor to produce a commodity - is higher
This is completely superfluous to the scenario. If I decide to sell my house for three benches even though I could have fetched 5 benches or 10 benches or 2000 benches--the 'socially necessary labor time' imbued in either my house or in the benches has no bearing on my decision to sell at that price point at that time. We can get a general idea of what a house is worth relative to benches if we look at all trades of houses and benches and average them. Again, no reference to 'socially necessary labor time' is needed. It is a metaphysical pinion.
>>8165914
'No'.
>>8165939
>no reference to 'socially necessary labor time' is needed
Of course this is necessary. The exchange value can only arise, if the socially value is determined. This socially value is determined by a certain amount of labor and once we know this value we can transform the vallue into subjective valuation. The exchange value is just an expression of the real value of the use-value. We can;t have exchange value when we don;t have socially value which is determined by the socially necessary labor time.
>>8165985
Let's say I simply found the house. It was unoccupied, I know nothing of who built it, it was simply there. The same for the fellow with the benches, they were just scattered about and he nicked them. Are we now incapable of making this exchange? Our property might as well have dropped out of heaven, so far as the labor time invested in it is concerned.
>>8166004
Better example and omne that tripped up ricardo is wine, it increases in exchange value with age despite people not maintaining it. This would be true even in a pre-capitalist society i am sure anyone would agree so this rise in price could not be attributed to redistributed surplus or whatever.
>>8166004
Btw the houses and benches were obviously made and as such embody labour which determine their value marxists will say, we live in a universe where things do not fall out of the sky, they must be made and it is man's nature as a producer of things that is the lifeblood of his identity as a humanbeing and seperates him from other animals, marx said.
>>8166061
Yeah, I know what Marx said about human nature, I don't care about all that. I'm wondering how socially necessary labor time had any bearing on the exchange in the scenario I laid out.
>>8166089
yeah, good luck with orthodox marxists trying to think outside of marxist abstractions and actually forced to tackle a concept of economy that doesnt rest on a permanently static system in equilibrium based on fundamental "Forms"
>>8166004
>Let's say I simply found the house.
Finding something doesn't make it your "property".
>>8166150
The country in which I found the house has sophisticated 'squatting' laws that bequeath ownership of a domicile to anyone in continuous, uncontested occupancy for a given period of time. Likewise, ownership of moveables is assumed by possession.
Now answer the question.
>>8166176
Property is the civilizational equivalent of "THAT'S NOT FAIR MOM! THAT'S MINE!!!! I DON'T CARE MOM!!! MOM!!! MOM!!! IT'S MINE MOME!!! YOU BOUGHT IT FOR ME MOM!!!! MOM THAT'S NOT FAIR!!!!! I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THROWING A FIT OVER INANIMATE OBJECTS THAT DON'T MATTER!!!! MOM!!!!!"
It's a bad habit that will eventually go away.
>>8166176
Not sure what you're asking. The exchange is governed by the laws applicable to the locale in which it occurs.
>>8166183
If you haven't been following the conversation, don't butt in.
>>8166220
Whatever point you're trying to make, it's not coming through.
>>8166238
'Socially necessary labor time is unnecessary to explain exchange equivalence' was the 'point'.
>>8166179
>implying that people don't treat "property" much better than "public property"
Most humans don't make rational choices unless they have their own skin in the game. Autists and Aspergers might be an exception but most humans are naturally tribal greedy assholes who manipulate surpluses of material goods for the social benefit of their tribe.
The concept of property is intimately related to the concept of responsibility and the concept of a self-responsibility.
>>8166243
Necessary but not sufficient.
>>8166253
Neither. Again, if you can't be bothered to follow the conversation refrain from entering it.
>>8166252
>most humans are naturally tribal greedy assholes who manipulate surpluses of material goods for the social benefit of their tribe.
Source on this universally?
>The concept of property is intimately related to the concept of responsibility and the concept of a self-responsibility.
Source on this?
>>8166265
Sorry, you're just wrong.
>>8166274
Great. Next!
>>8166252
>most humans are naturally tribal greedy assholes who manipulate surpluses of material goods for the social benefit of their tribe
oh, that's true
it kind of fascinates me what people think when they gather charity for american war vets, who are already very well paid, that's leaving aside that they are basically adventurers who went aboard to kill some people for money and , bawww, some of them were hurt, it's when hundreds million people on the earth starve
>>8166252
Further, the myth of success is "all men for themselves" is ridiculous and antiquated. It's the direct opposite, nothing points to this, there's growing evidence its the exact opposite.
Kropotkin's ideas of mutual aids, as well as 19th century initial Marxist analysis of history, tends to be surprisingly on the money most of the time. In history and anthropology.
If we're to regress to vague unprovable arguments of "human nature", it's more that "human nature", as a social genus from social organisms, have more in common than the concept of mutual aid than the concept of Randism, or other 19th century individualist nonsense. Not just in humans, generally in life outside of it, outside of mammals as well.
does Marx have any value to me? would it benefit me or empower me to understand him?
>>8167199
not everything is about you lol. In fact it isn't.
>>8167207
actually, it is. it seems that tackling marx wounld be rather time intensive especially for a man who works a factory job as a technician and for whom free time is very valuable. if studying him is of no benefit, if it enriches my life or understanding not at all and it is merely one man's ideological prism for analysing an exchange system, then why would i bother?
>>8167221
>actually, it is
nope
>>8167224
yes, you see, whether i ought to read marx or not has everything to do with whether doing so will in any way benefit me. as you seem to not be able to cite a single way it would benefit me, i likely will not.
as well, if not to benefit me, why study him?
>>8167230
If you take literature that way there's no way you could possibly find anything interesting. Go find a new hobby that mirrors your lack of curiosity and short attention span, shallow bastard.
>>8167238
>He's outdated in an era of social media and globalization anyway.
>>8167237
I read lots of things that I feel enrich my life. Sophocles and Homer and Shakespeare mostly, but also anthropology and some philosophy. Marx seems like a very boring blueprint explained in a not very compelling manner. I could be wrong.
>>8167238
I am not opposed to violent revolution per se, provided it were to result in a favorable outcome, which seems unlikely. My understanding of Marx's view of history makes him seem simplistic but then again he had incomplete information and perhaps if he had the next hundred years of anthropological knowledge he might had been better at it. Anyway I am not sure I would trust his predictions on a historical level.
>>8167242
Over 75% of Americans work in services. The industrial working class that's supposed to be what the revolution is all about is practically nonexistent.
This is how I know /lit/ has become reddit-tier-- Marx threads stay up for days and anything conservative, both fiscally and socially, is shot down instantly.
>>8167270
cry more
>>8167270
Awwww, how sad. Fortunately for you, the rest of 4chan is a rightwing shithole packed to the gills with racist mouthbreathers like yourself.
>>8167260
Yeah so lenin (or was it stalin) had to respond to how "what the fuck you're saying capitalism leads to falling rates of profits but labourers in america and europe have gotten to a petit bourgeos standard of living so wth?"
His answer was something about them getting surplus value from abroad via colonialism etc.
>>816qlthough the bourgeois arised, he proletariat also arised. The arising of the bourgeoisie is not an example of national. socalliy welfare for the proletrariat also increased
>>8167270
Maybe if you had read Marx, you'd understand why this thread stays up for days
>>8167256
>Marx seems like a very boring blueprint explained in a not very compelling manner
You're completely wrong. The first chapter of capital is very abstract and hard to understand, but when you've finished the first chapter, it gets easier and easier. Not only are his abstract theories of value incredible, but he also paraphrases Dante, Homer and Shakespeare and you can see how very erudite this man was. Also, he taks a lot in polemic ways about people and these polemics are hilarious and very well written. SO, even if you don't like abstract, economic philosophy Marx is very nice to read and very instructive. Go read a few pages and you start laughing because of his arrogant, polemic writing. It's beautiful
>>8167230
>if not to benefit me, why study him?
This utilitarian view is what's wrong with the world, the profitability-thinking. Go study what happened in the german areas at the end of the 18th century: a cultural revolution took place, led by Immanuel Kant. It was a copernican revolution of the mind. People starting to read and start to assemble in cafés to talk about literature and philosophy. Very interesting topic. But what I'm trying to say, is that the reason that this happens, was because of the so called Bildung (german for human development). People were not reading because it'd benefit their lives in a practical way because I don't think that is where philosophy or literature is about. It is about the Bildung. And this is why you should read Marx: not because it will benefit your life in a practical way, but because it will benefit your Bildung.
>>8167238
>He's outdated in an era of social media and globalization anyway.
Why shouldn't we read Marx in this era of globalization? because globalization doesn'n need any citicism?
And if we shouldn't read Marx because he never wrote about the particular form of globalization in which it occurs these days we SHOULD read marxists, for example Zizek.
>>8167230
We're having a discussion about certain abstract points in capital and you're asking whether you should read Marx or not
>>8167926
>Ideas don't have to be useful
Marxists should point this out more often. It would save everyone a lot of time given that most people engage in discussion to obtain useful ideas that actually inform their action. But what's the use in time....I get the feeling that all time spent on earth not exploring Marxism is wasted from a Marxist perspective.
>>8167926
I thought the point was to change the world.
>>8168750
>all time spent on earth not exploring Marxism is wasted from a Marxist perspective.
This goes for every ideology: capitalism, liberalism etc etc. I don't want to call myself a marxist, but I do think that everybody should read capital
>>8168777
Marx's point was, not my point.
>>8167260
>The industrial working class that's supposed to be what the revolution is all about is practically nonexistent.
>implying that the proletariat no longer exists
please.
>>8167221
>has a factory job
>thinks reading Marx is of no benefit
how ironic
>>8166252
>most humans are naturally tribal greedy assholes who manipulate surpluses of material goods for the social benefit of their tribe
exaclty, Then why maintain a economic system (neo- liberal /capitalism) that encourages those feelings?
>>8166179
have you read Proudhon? You sound very much like him
>>8166045
this is not the first value of the wine, this is the value after a few years. Of course Marx would agree on this, look at the pages of capital where he introduces the exhcange value and talks about change of value because of external factors. When one wants to know the contemporary value, one must first now the original, first value that arised when the product was made and once one know that, one can determine the contemporary value by changing of external effects. And still, to determine the first value of the wine, the socially necesssary labor time determines it's value.
>>8166004
>Are we now incapable of making this exchange?
of course not, this is not an exchange, if you want to exchange two commodities you had either 1: produced the commodity or 2: has exchanges another commodity for your present commodity in the past. Since these two situations don't happen, there is no exchange. This doesn't mean that the socialy necessary amount of labor-time has changed, which means that the value of the benches has not changed. this hypothetical situatioon has a different value, I agree, but this doesn'm mean that the social value changes
>studying Marx
>2016
>>8168885
what's wrong with ssudying masters of the past? Should we not read Ovidius or Homer simply because thwy are thousands years dead? Or are you implying that Marx has o influence on today's scoiety?
>>8168885
>being this intellectually stunted
>>8168891
But that's just it. Marx is useful to study insofar as he has an influence on things, not insofar as he was correct about anything. Economics is far far past Marx.
>>8168918
Orthodox marxism is an internet meme.
>>8168936
But arguing with them on this forum is, you fucking Milhouse.
>>8168914
No one has matched Marx's acute understanding of capitalism, before or since.
>>8168966
That's a quite an assertion. Maybe you say that only because your economic understanding is mostly of Marx?
Marx poster here.
Ask me anything.
>>8167199
Understanding Marx is taking the first step towards a conscious reconstruction of the totality of society in theory--a reconstruction that at once points beyond itself towards practical intervention into the object of knowledge.
Marx unearths the series of things that lay within what presents itself as most immediate and natural.
I read it, but i didn't understand it enogh to help much.
>>8169762
>david Harvey
Wew
But seriously if u are into Marxist economics you should read Mandel's late capitalism. Bukharin as well and Paul mattick
>>8169793
Harvey's companion to volume 2/3 is a solid reading of Marx.
But you're right, Volume I is a little like a geography/sociology reading of Marx.
I don't care for Marxist economics.
Value-form theory is more my thing. Mattick and his son are cool though.
>>8169762
Any part of Marx that you don't think hold up?
I had heard that a lot of people ditched the labor theory of value for instance (the whole corn theory argument I'm familiar with) , but I'd be curious to hear thoughts on that from somebody who's read the whole body
What aspects of his though are the most worthwhile from a modern perspective?
>>8169762
t. white male bourgeois
>>8169762
Just vomited in my mouth a little.
>>8169816
The labor theory of value is axiomatic. It can't be directly proven but without positing it, a whole lot of dynamics on the surface of capitalist production become impenetrable and incomprehensible. Market conditions can explain movements and actually enforce the law of value, but they can't determine why things look the way they look when supply and demand are equal. Marx assumes capital is a naturalized system with its own set of objective, rational laws. Modern bourgeois economics is complete irrationalism.
But again, I'm more interested in value as a socially critical concept that attempts to explain a social form that reproduces itself through private, antagonistic production and conflicting class formations.
>>8169818
t. Just above minimum wage earning son of illeterate Mexican immigrants.
>>8167270
Get paid pupper
>>8169884
>but they can't determine why things look the way they look when supply and demand are equal.
This just means the markets have completely 'cleared'. Everyone that wanted to sell something at a given price point has sold it, and everyone that wanted to buy something at a given price point has bought it, with no barrier to purchase or sale. This is an ideal condition, but there's no mystery, and certainly nothing left to be explained by metaphysics.
>>8167270
>Marx threads stay up for days and anything conservative, both fiscally and socially, is shot down instantly.
wah wah we only have half the site memeing our shit, why can't we have /lit/ too?
>>8170021
Superstitious nonsense.
>>8169762
read much Jameson? how is he?
>>8167270
go to another board then, crybaby faggot.
>>8170036
Oh, the ironing is delicious.
>>8161081
Go to /pol/
Political discussions belong there.
>>8170021
So you really think natural prices are simply set through a series of subjective determinations of prices? That there is no reason that market equilibrium rests at $25 and not $30 aside from random, purely subjective decisions by buyers and sellers?
That's irrationalism at its finest.
>>8165729
I agree but couldn't help myself.
>>8168885
I don't see why not?
>>8170092
Equilibrium is something that is never achieved, but towards which prices are always moving. It never 'rests' anywhere--it's not a thing, it's an ideal condition.
There are a number of factors that determine pricing, subjective valuation on the part of the consumer being one of them. Production costs are another.
I don't think you know what "irrationalism" means, but classical economics certainly isn't an example. Quite the opposite, actually, as the economic agent is the rational agent par excellence--and that is its fatal flaw as an axiom and modelling parameter.
>>8170119
why do people use adorable and cute as insults
it's silly!
>>8169949
that's because conservatism is confused as shit and all sorts of fucked up by the American idea of conservative and especially the GOP's whole Southern Strategy. It's all
>we want smaller government
>but wait we also want government to keep all those illegals out and enforce OUR religious beliefs on people but we can't let SOME people make decisions by themselves
or [and this is on the other side and adds to the confusion]
>we want big government to tell people what's right and to tell people to respect our life choices!
>but we also want to be free from laws that tell us how to live and law enforcement in general
and that's just in the US. Things get a lot [A LOT] more complicated and obfuscated once you start considering the rest of the Americas, and Europe, and Africa.
>>8170159
for once I actually agree with you.
>>8170654
So market determined valuation if you notice here reduces the composition of prices to:
"subjective valuation" + production costs + all manner of unknown quantities and qualities
Production costs is there to give you the sense that there is something rational, something objectively real in quantitative terms that grounds prices. But what are production costs? The costs of the conditions of labor and the cost of labor itself.
What determines the pricing of machinery, raw materials, etc.? They will surely respond: "subjective valuation" + production costs + all manner of unknown quantities and qualities.
So really, the only grounding he has here is either in purely subjective valuation or in some cascade of unknown variables beyond our grasp. So its either non-objective and hence not grounded so that subjective (market) conditions obviously influence the movement of prices but are unable to explain the point around which they move or it devolves into pure incomprehensibility.
>>8170813
Who is "they"? This is all me, baby.
>What are production costs?
Inputs plus overhead. Labor is an input. "The conditions of labor" would probably be part of overhead, if you're talking about the facility in which production is taking place.
And what is this nonsense about "grounding"? What needs to be grounded? The determination of pricing given equilibrium? Equilibrium is just that price point at which supply=demand. There's nothing left to be grounded.
>the only grounding he has here is either in purely subjective valuation or in some cascade of unknown variables beyond our grasp
This is a false dichotomy that also misrepresents what was written. Subjective valuation very obviously is a determining factor in pricing. If no one is willing to shell out $50 for a pot of yogurt, either the price needs to be dropped or the company producing that yogurt will go out of business for lack of sales. As far as the "cascade of unknown variables" goes, here are a few concrete examples: 'competitiveness' of a given market; the quantity of money in circulation and the availability of credit; supply shortages or surpluses; cultural preferences, prohibitions, and practices; and on.
>So its either non-objective and hence not grounded so that subjective (market) conditions obviously influence the movement of prices but are unable to explain the point around which they move or it devolves into pure incomprehensibility
This is another false dichotomy that doesn't even follow from the previous one. Anyway, it's on YOU to demonstrate that a further "ground" beyond the ordinary determination of prices is necessary to "comprehend" equilibrium.
Very curious how you take the labor theory of value to provide an "objective" explanation of prices given its total dependence on, as you yourself have admitted already, dogmatism. (>>8169884 >The labor theory of value is axiomatic)
>>8170947
How do you determine price of inputs? You can't posit something by simply presupposing its existence within the proof.
You basically say that overhead + need of individuals determines price. This overhead is further reduced to its own overhead + need of individuals.
At the end of the day, when you abstract from all conditions of competition all you're left with is needs/preferences/culture deciding prices.
How do you explain price changes then when consumer conditions remain the same but conditions of production change?
>>8171034
>How do you determine price of inputs?
Same as you would for anything else, barring labor, which has a political dimension.
>You basically say that overhead + need of individuals determines price.
...no I don't. Where do I say that?
>At the end of the day, when you abstract from all conditions of competition all you're left with is needs/preferences/culture deciding prices.
Regulations and taxes, too. And a host of other things.
>How do you explain price changes then when consumer conditions remain the same but conditions of production change?
By "consumer conditions" I'm going to assume you basically mean demand, and by "conditions of production", supply. Don't know why you feel the need to bloat the terns out like that, but whatever: literally any number of ways. For example, say there's a global shortage of in important input in the production of widgets, itself a critical input in other industries, such that output is cut in half. Demand is the same, but supply is now half of what it was, so price rises.
>>8171034
Also:
>This overhead is further reduced to its own overhead + need of individuals.
What? Overhead would be things like rent, managerial compensation, accounting supplies, maintenance, and other sunk costs.
>You can't posit something by simply presupposing its existence within the proof.
I haven't attempted a "proof" of anything, so you can't really accuse me of begging the question.
The economy is dynamic, open system wherein every part is co-determining every other part. It is autochtonous--the activity of the economy itself, which is just to say the activity of all its participants, is what "ultimately" determines and sustains or "grounds" it.
>>8169884
>Modern bourgeois economics is complete irrationalism.
Why apply the principle of sufficient reason here?
Anyway thanks this makes modern marxists seem marginally less cracked.
>>8169884
I will respond to this later, i like your arguments but i think the other poster is a little all over the place, i would guess he has just passed HS or has little knowledge of econ beyond undergrad courses.
Costs being reduced to labour seems possible in a pre-capitalist society, i.e. the one marx was considering in chapter 1, becauase then there is no rent to be paid on land.
It's absurd to believe this works in a modern economy though, where people actually own land/means of production/shit ton of money and expect a profit over and above their investments.
Answer me this though, do you seriously believe the way Marx said profits are determined? By way of allocating surplus in accordance with proportion of capital to total industrial capital?
P.s. although modern economists don't see this to be too applicable given the constant changes in technology (which I guess you could call the fruit of very effective labour) and demand (because more and more people get employed) and what not, if you study modern economics, even HS level market structures, there are some very methodological determinations of price, supply and demand is a general introduction but they do say a lot, lot, more about how both of these are determined.
>>8171708
Not who you are responding to but:
The classical conception of profit with the British economists was that profit was the net return to capital invested in plant, equipment and related outlays... these costs are always reducible to the labour time that went into their production. Modern economics tends to muddle up profit and rent but the classical economists would try to make a very clear distinction between the two. The neoclassical economists seem to use profit as a synonym for all earnings regardless of their source... e.g. "profits" and "earnings" include rental income, which classical political economy identified with land or other mere legal property rights.
The entire essence of classical political economy was that no outlay of living or embodied labour is actually needed to obtain rent and interest. The ensuing marginal utility theory completely ignored the wealth addiction that historically has gone hand in hand with rentiers and the tendency for their compound interest demands to approach infinity. All this rentier overhead is not actually a part of the mode of production but rather the mode of finance/wealth/economic power. This is why the bourgeoisie initially in their fight against feudal rentier interests advocated things like land-value taxation which wouldn't hurt but increase the rate of fixed-capital formation by punishing mere rent seeking activity.
Marxs whole critique of the classical school was they didn't actually have a good theory of profit since you couldn't really boil profit down into mere costs in the way they were trying to. There was an additional surplus which was being created by purchasing the commodity labour-power, a surplus that no other commodity could generate, and paying for it bellow its actual reproductive capacity. Fixed-capital is just mere accumulated dead labour, living labour was always the source of the new net revenue which is just the monetary expression of the new value created by labour in every production cycle. Without this objective process of continuous new value creation all your paper money or other symbolic expressions of value would just rapidly inflate and become useless.
>>8172129
>The classical conception of profit with the British economists was that
Do you mean economists after or before Ricardo, classical is broad what time period exactly are you looking at?
>these costs are always reducible to the labour time that went into their production.
Not sure what you mean by classical but as far as people before Marx who Marx was familiar with are concerned Smith asserted correctly that the cost of land paid as rent is not reducable to labour time because it is a monopoly price that landowners charge because they have that property legall. Unless you honestly believe the cost of rent is reducible to the labour put in to creating and maintaining the boundries of/monopoly over chunks of land, physically with fences or whatever and legally by lobbying (which is silly, you would surely agree) it is silly to say this cost can be reduced to labour.
>The neoclassical economists seem to use profit as a synonym for all earnings regardless of their source... e.g. "profits" and "earnings" include rental income, which classical political economy identified with land or other mere legal property rights.
That is interesting to know, that their definitions changed but how is this relevant to your point (what you are trying to convey) whatever that is.
>The entire essence of classical political economy was that no outlay of living or embodied labour is actually needed to obtain rent and interest
I do not know what you mean by essence, but assuming that by interest you mean a rate of profit on capital interest, yes, they did point out that some people could basically sit on their ass, put x amount of money into hiring labourers and buying machinery to make products, sell those products, and earn x(1+r) amount back.
>the wealth addiction that historically has gone hand in hand with rentiers and the tendency for their compound interest demands to approach infinity
You mean they did not speak of how there were folks who expected their product price to help cover their interest on capital? I don't know about what was up historically but modern economics does emphasize this, I'll look up what the marginals said about producers more carefully though, it seems strange to assume there is not a capitalist backing a business who does not expect revenue minus labour costs to cover more than the normal return on capital.
>All this rentier overhead is not actually a part of the mode of production but rather the mode of finance/wealth/economic power.
What do you mean by rentier overhead, profits and rent?
What does it mean for something to be a part of the mode of production? You mean it is considered when setting the price/that it otherwise affects price?
I do not understand what you mean by the mode of production either, I assume you mean the process of production?
What is the "mode of" finance/wealth/economic power too?
(cont.)
>>8172721
>>8172129
>This is why the bourgeoisie initially in their fight against feudal rentier interests advocated things like land-value taxation which wouldn't hurt but increase the rate of fixed-capital formation by punishing mere rent seeking activity.
What is a land value tax? Does it tax unused land or something and hence increase profits by reducing rent? Since landlords will chare less rent if having their land idle means losing money?
>they didn't actually have a good theory of profit since you couldn't really boil profit down into mere costs in the way they were trying to
I don't see how they were boiling down profits into costs? Anywy obviously profits can't be composed of costs since most people would define profits as revnue minus costs. How do you believe they were boiling down profits into costs and what was wrong with this?
>There was an additional surplus
By surplus you mean something additional? But what thing do you mean was additional? There was something that was being added on I presume you are trying to say but to what was it added on? And what was the thing that was added on?
Do you mean there was an increase in the price a busienssman could charge for a good by buying >the commodity labour-power AND >paying for it below its actual reproductive capacity? An increase relative to the price they could charge if they did not purchase this labour-power (nothing? because the good presumably could not have existed on the market without any labour applied to its raw materials).
And there is no good but labour power that can increase the price a businessman can charge for his good?
>the new net revenue which is just the monetary expression of the new value created by labour in every production cycle.
So revenue beyond costs, in money terms, represents the value created by labour?
>Fixed-capital is just mere accumulated dead labour, living labour was always the source of the new net revenue
Right, so as busineses use more machinery and less labour, there is less living labour in each production cycle, which meams there is less value added, as you said net revenue in local currency units (I preaume there is no othe way to measure net revenue that you would like to use since you did say net revenue is the "monetary" expression of added value) is the expression of new value created by labour, then shouldn't business have less net revenue in local currency units, be those units dollars or euros or whatever?
How do you explain business making more profits with more machinery then? More inteligent and effective labour put into making and operating these machines?
Assume the hypothetical case of a fully automated coffee maker that has robots grow and make coffee, served in cups at the dispenser location automatically, coffeebourgeois owns this machine and its patent so noone can copy the design, given labour can only create value and a limited amount of labour as been put into making the machine with (cont.)
>>8172845
Relatively only small amounts of labour put into maintaining it, you would argue that by virtue of the fact that labour only creates net revenue, for whatever reason, the coffee business wil eventually not be able to make net revenue because labour has not beein put into it? Which means not enough people will want to buy the coffee (source of net revenue) to cover the cost of maintanence because labour has not been put into it?
Or is it just never possible to have a commodity-making process automated?
>Without this objective process of continuous new value creation all your paper money or other symbolic expressions of value would just rapidly inflate and become useless.
Why would it inflate? In so far as labour creates value that is expressed in monetary form, without the process of value creation net revenue itself should stop, as opposed to reduce in its purchasing power in commodity terms (inflation) or would you like to change your proposition from saying labour creates value that is expressed in monetary form to labour creates value that is expressed in the form of the ability to purchase a certaim amount of goods via paper symbol
>>8171708
>i think the other poster is a little all over the place, i would guess he has just passed HS or has little knowledge of econ beyond undergrad courses.
What makes you say this? I was addressing someone with little to no knowledge of mainstream economics, why would I speak to him like he had a PhD in the subject?
>>8172721
By classical I mean political economy in the vain of Smith, Ricardo, Mill, etc... they essiently viewed profit as only the result of employing wage labour and mixing it with fixed-capital to create a commodity which is sold on a market. This was the key break that Adam Smith made and it distinguished him off from all economists before him who never really marked off rent from profit. Smith showed that generating profit was the real initial source of growth... rent (and wages) to him were just paid out of this profit.
Say you purchased a road and just put up a toll booth you're not generating profit but you're extracting rent from profit generating enterprises. The fear was rentiers most likely wouldn't even invest this rent into industrial profit generating enterprises (the rate of profit is always low in developed nations) but just use it to generate more parasitic rent extracting schemes, try to inflate their asset values, employ manual servants or just sink it into other unproductive expenses. Feudal reaction were threatened by the new industrial bourgeoisie who were attempting to undermining old class privileges.
>>8172845
LVT would force unused land into productive usage and reduce the cost of land-rent for productive capitalists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax#Classical_economists
Remember the classical economists subscribed to a vulgar underdeveloped labour theory of value... commodities with equal amounts of embodied labour time should exchange for each other in value terms, that's what made capitalism so fair. Obviously you're not going to build a good theory of profit off this. If equivalents are always exchanging for equivalents profit cannot really emerge. Something has to introduce something new into the industrial process which is worth more than itself in monetary terms.
surplus revenue = surplus-value * money equivalent of value
profit = surplus revenue + deviation (surplus revenue transferred as interest payments/taxes/rent/etc from other sectors of the economy)
sum total of profits = sum total of surplus revenues
The money equivalent of value is actually different in each nation and is expressed in the countries national currency.
Also about the "fully automated coffee makers"... sure you can make monetary "profit" but this is being redistributed to you from other unmechanized sectors which employ wage-labour to generate profit... the monopoly you're granted by the state with your patent allows you to command superprofits.
Also a company never gets reimbursed for the value it actually generates in monetary terms because of money capital and finance which redistributes revenue around the economy... if it wasn't for this sectors that employ more labour would have a disproportionately high rate of profit and no one would invest in high tech sectors.
>>8173002
Also I should say... this might sound really weird but... land (or any natural resource for that matter) doesn't really posses any value. Only labour can generate value. That however doesn't mean it cannot have a monetary expression. The government can give the right to someone over the control of natural resources and they can charge people for it but this is purely the result of positive law.
Rent generates "fake" costs, in a sense, which are just the result of positive law and inflates the monetary value of commodities. The private ownership of the means of production means their owners can take them out of operation to inflate the value of their commodities to generate higher "profits".
>>8173075
>only labor can generate value
Metaphysical dogma.
>>8173093
Subjectivism is much more metaphysical since value to them doesn't even have any external substance... it's all just a mental phenomena which can increase or decrease based on our individual desires at any moment.
>>8173002
I know that stuff about Smith but anyway:
>Say you purchased a road and just put up a toll booth you're not generating profit but you're extracting rent from profit generating enterprises.
You have a strange definition of profits.
Id much prefer it if you answered my questions directly anyway.
>Commodities with equal amounts of embodied labour time should exchange for each other in value terms, that's what made capitalism so fair.
But they do not trade for one another as so.
>If equivalents are always exchanging for equivalents profit cannot really emerge.
You mean goods with equivalent labour?
Assuming good a and good b require the same labour it is possible to gain profits, say there is no fixed cost and labouters are paid w hourly wage and they are to work for h hours to make both goods.
Given that both goods must trade for each other we know Pa=Pb, given the rate of profit r that both producers get:
Pa=wh(1+r)=Pb
Who ever told you profits could not emerge?
The rest is a mess, nevermind, this is fruitless, I'm just going to read Kant.
How do you explain the increasing price of wine anyway?
>>8173115
Relational, not 'mental'. I determine the 'value' of a product for me given my current desire/need, expendable income, etc and everyone else does the same.
People don't just purchase things mechanically to fulfill their function within an economy and 'realize' the surplus-value in them or whatever--they have to *want* the things.
>>8173124
Profit doesn't emerge in the mere exchange of commodities, that's just redistribution... only in the production process profit emerges where labour has to be purchased for something non-equivalent.
>>8173160
Demand is shaped on the side of production just as much as on the side of consumption in reality... value to subjectivists has no substance, it's noting but mere choice.
>>8173124
I'm the other guy.
You've begged the question regarding how profits are possible given an 'exchange of equivalents'. You assume there is a rate of profit r when that is what needs to be demonstrated.
Pa=wh(1+r)=Pb just shows that both producers pay the same hourly wage and employ their workers for the same hours while earning the same rate of profit (somehow). Not sure why you're multiplying r by the product of wh.
>>8173199
Production is where the supply function enters. A price is offered given costs of production and anticipated profit, and that price is accepted or rejected based on consumer need and desire.
>>8173199
>Profit doesn't emerge in the mere exchange of commodities, that's just redistribution... only in the production process profit emerges where labour has to be purchased for something non-equivalent.
Also, this is just more dogma. You need to prove this.
>>8173201
It was claimed things could not be traded for their labour values AND profits be made, I showed this is possible if the rate of profit is the same, I assumed y'all were aware of the general argument for common rates of profit.
If the rate of profit were different, there woud only be investments in the industry with higher profits, this would increase the amount of workers employed, quantity produced and therefore reduce the market price til profits are the same and influx stops.
>>8173247
Again, you're assuming there is profit, when the question is how profit is possible.
>>8173201
r is the rate of return on capital so say it is 5 percent or 0.05 for a good that needs say 20 hours of labour at the wage of 5 dollars per hour the total cost would be 100 and the capitalist would put a mark up on this of 5 percent to get it to 100(1+0.05) or 105 as the price, the reason this is the price is that any less means less than ordinary return, investors take out capital, supply decreases price increase rate rises, anymore and more investments supply and price decreases back so capitalists get the normal return.
>>8173267
Yes, I see. I think there would still remain, for our friend, the question of how r is determined. Here it seems to be an arbitrary rate set by the capitalist, i.e. a 'subjective' expectation of a given return.
One would expect to see some return, though. Otherwise why go into business in the first place?
>>8173260
it is the very assumption of labour values profit that is questionable, not the possibility of the latter
>>8173392
Ah, I apologize, I misunderstood. Well, labor is a given, and so is the expectation of profit. So we're left with 'value'. What is 'value', again?
>>8173408
Fucking this, what the hell is value, I feel most of LTV boils down to semantic problems.
>>8173247
In reality any company or sectors rate of profit is never the same. Any hypothesis of uniformity of the rate of profit should be rejected.
Economists entrenched in pure theory seriously believe the rate of return on investment in lemonade stands and chemical industries are moving towards some equilibrium which it should eventually reach.
Competition is obviously real enough but it does not drive the rates of profit to converge to a common equilibrium magnitude... the drive is more towards an equilibrium probability distribution, whose general form is theoretically ascertainable and should be empirically verifiable.
The labour theory of value was initially led into a theoretical crisis because it attempted to reconcile value categories with the fallacious assumption of a uniformity of the rate of profit.
The main problem with all economics from my perspective is the methodological prejudice that recognizes only fully deterministic theoretical models. Just because prices and rates of profit may be "all over the place", in reality and in theory, their distribution can still be subject to definite laws. I don't know why people don't want to accept this as its obviously how things really are.
>>8173454
There are models of monopolostic competitions too that most economocs agree are more applicable to the world I just brought this up because were were talking hypotheticals and theoy.
>>8173443
Value for Marx has a qualitative and quantitative sense. It's describes a form produced objects take when production occurs in a thoroughly commodity-determined manner--private producers whose conditions for production presuppose their presence on a market and whose production is assuming production for a market rather than *direct* need.
In quantitative terms, it's the representation in money of the social allocation of labor under indirectly (market mediated) social reproduction. Since direct comparison between commodities is not possible, value steps in to provide a given, quantitative way of comparing commodities (prices).
Prices then are determined by a relation not directly visible (the total social conditions of production in a given sphere) but which makes it presence felt in the movement of prices not relatively determined by market conditions. These market conditions themselves can in mediated way react upon production conditions. If more labor goes into your product than mine, your product has a higher individual value but a lower social value if you produce under less favorable conditions. Your value product is more than what the given price is because your productivity is below average. If productivity grows, prices fall and if your conditions of production remain the same, you no longer can sell at a money-sum that allows for reproduction, let alone accumulation for expanded reproduction.
Subjective theories of price (modern bourgeoise economists dare not speak of value anymore) can't explain any of this.
>>8173594
>Subjective theories of price (modern bourgeoise economists dare not speak of value anymore) can't explain any of this.
It's not that they can't, but that they don't need to, as the problem and Marx's is completely exogenous to the subject.
>>8173651
So you're essentially turning any economic science away from explaining how the production of goods actually appears on the market within a system of production characterized by the immediate unity of production and the market?
Modern economics either unconsciously reflects in an uncritical way the ideas and superstitions of capitalists or actively obscures understanding the character of production. It's the lacuna in the bourgeois mind.
>>8173693
'Okay'.
>>8170069
>Go to /pol/
I dodn't think they could help me, to be honest
>>8168918
It doesn't serve you. So if someone's defending Marx's theories, he or she is just an orthodox marxist with no sense or reality?
>>8170159
it;s the best way to insult somone
>>8170069
He's asking about a book about economics
>>8173594
>If more labor goes into your product than mine, your product has a higher individual value but a lower social value if you produce under less favorable conditions
Exactly. The value is can not decreased because of the substituion of simple workers with educated orkers, for every educated labor can be reduced to socially necessary (simple) labor time. The value only changes when the work conditions change or if machines are bought to increase the productivity
>>8173408
Value is the most abstract 'thing' in society and the misinterpretation is that value is determined by a certain amount of money. Value is intrinsic (NAV) and therefore hard to embody
>>8176031
of*
>>8172721
>the cost of land paid as rent is not reducable to labour time because it is a monopoly price that landowners charge because they have that property legall
I really do think that the value of land is determined by the labor-time socially necessary to maintain and create boundries, cultivate the soil, fertilize the soill. Why not?
>>8172886
>labour creates value that is expressed in monetary form
What do you think of the idea of Marx that money is just the equivalent form and the relative value form determines the value, not the equivalent form?
>>8169762
If money (the equivalent form) doesn't determine the value, but the relative value form does, what does this value look lik? Since it has not a monetary form for this is just an embodiment.
