Anyone here have any valid objections to the labour theory of value?
Pic unrelated.
>>79486888
Jimmy Neutron almost feels like a meme show that never existed, yet somehow lurks deep within my subconcious mind, subtley reminding me, that it once existed.
I spend many a year late at night. Yet seeing the few pics which become meme worthy, I wonder if the show ever existed. If the videogames, tv specials, and otherwise bizarre spin offs give validity to it's concept and meaning.
And then I smoke some dank ass kush 420 blaze it faggot.
Fucking choose a relevant picture you cunt.
>>79486888
If I create a typewriter through a great deal of labor, it will still be worth nothing because it is obsolete technology.
>>79486888
this is not a /pol/ related faggot
MODS MODS MODS
>>>/b/
RE3EEEEE3EEEEEEEEEEEE
>>79488197
All of the stupid ass threads, and you bitch about this one? I hope this is bait you dumb faggot.
>>79486888
the value of stuff is subjective so the labor theory of value can not be true. does that seem lieka valid objection to you?
>>79488274
THIS RAIDS ARE GETTING OUT OF HAND REEEEEEEEEE
>>79487853
The LTV concerns itself with socially necessary labour. Any labour which isn't social labour does not create value.
>>79488497
So how would you justify this claim? If you are talking about marginal utility theory, then one would ask: since commodities have different use-values which cannot be measured quantitatively, how is it possible that subjective utilities can be translated into value, which are then transformed into prices?
Marginal utility abstracts away capitalism entirely, focusing too narrow-mindedly on an ideal abstraction of exchange.
On the other hand, the LTV aligns with society's abstraction of labour and value creation.
>>79486888
it's really difficult to assign everything's value to labor. What is the value of land or ideas in terms of labor?
>>79486888
Yeah, labor isn't inherently valuable.
>>79489351
I'm talking about this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value
>how is it possible that subjective utilities can be translated into value, which are then transformed into prices?
prices aren't randomly set by people. I'm sure you know that prices are set in order to maximize profits and that prices too low or too high would be bad for profits. I'm not sure what your objections are to that.
>>79489351
> since commodities have different use-values which cannot be measured quantitatively, how is it possible that subjective utilities can be translated into value, which are then transformed into prices?
very usual argument against LTV.
the goal of the LTV is to not seek some other abstract constant of value that translates labour to prices. It just demonstrates where value comes from, the 'other' is just a digressive question meant to confuse people who dont know better.
>>79490191
That makes sense, but isn't it the case that some type of labor's being socially necessary is determined by the wants and desires of the consumer? Take something like Google Glass. If consumers reject that new technology, then the labor required to produce Google Glass becomes valueless. But if the consumers desire Google Glass in large quantities, then suddenly the product is valuable, but the amount of labor required to produce it did not change. Maybe I'm not seeing clearly.
>>79489722
It is not difficult. The processes of capitalism and the economy already do it for us. Marxian economists don't look at a toothbrush, trace back its labour inputs and arrive at a single value to which we might ascribe the toothbrush. That is already done by society.
>>79489827
The LTV doesn't talk about labour that isn't socially necessary.
>>79491179
>The processes of capitalism
except capitalism do not measure the value of its products by labor
>>79490131
The way prices are set have to do with the turning of profit, but nothing to do with value creation. Surplus value is expropriated in order to turn profits; the exploitation is manifested in prices, among other things like wages.
Subjective value is an abstraction which does not reflect the true nature of capitalism. It does not truly show, through what mechanism, commodities arrive at their value in the market.
>>79491315
No, what that is still how value is derived. If the coffee industry has a worker-machine ratio of 2 to 1, while the car industry's is 3 to 2, then the rate of value creation is greater in the car industry.
>>79491157
You're exactly right. Supply and demand is just a manifestation of social necessity.
>>79490191
I was arguing against marginal utility theory. Use-values are separate from exchange-values. We're on the same page here.
>>79491556
what about selling ideas. Only 1 worker is involved and no machines are. What is the value of an idea in terms of labor?
>>79491246
>The LTV doesn't talk about labour that isn't socially necessary.
How do you determine this
>>79491157
Now we are getting into the difference between price and value
the value of the glasses=the value expended to make them
the price of the glasses=value+(other economic factors)
>>79491968
Ideas can just be treated as commodities. What are you trying to get at here?
>>79492249
Right, prices fluctuate according to supply and demand around an equilibrium point of value.
>>79489049
What is "socially necessary labour"? How do you define "socially necessary labour"? What you think of as "socially necessary labour" is merely electrical signals interpreted by your brain.
>>79492165
That's just what the theory is. It's simply the definition of the LTV, ie value derives from homogeneous, socially necessary human labour in the abstract.
>>79487115
movie was fun
season 1 was good
season 2 was cuck garbage
we don't talk about planet sheen.
>>79492347
how do you determine the value of an idea? It's a lot less straight forward then a car or something.
>>79492414
I don't think of social necessity in a particular way. It is literally whatever society demands that is social necessity.
>>79491431
Price is the greatest carrier of economic information. Billions of independent economic agents (ie people) tell everyone else what everything is worth by the price they are willing to pay.
Yes, prices can be artificially altered through policies and rules, but the vast majority of prices are at their economically viable level.
You can control some of the prices all of the time, and all of the prices some of the time, but you can't control all of the prices all of the time.
>>79492449
This is actually a really good question. I'll have to think about it a bit, I have a rough answer but I'm not confident enough to share it at the moment.
>>79492441
I saw one episode of Planet sheen.
It was autism born of euphoria.
>>79492657
ok, waiting in this thread then
>>79492553
Yes, but bourgeois economists (I can tell you subscribe to neoclassical/Austrian school economics) fail to grasp what lies behind prices, and that is value. By failing to grasp the way value is created through labour, bourgeois economists are disconnected from reality.
>>79492504
So you're saying that the value of someone's labor is based on how much it's demanded by society? Is that right?
>>79492846
More or less, you could think of it that way. The portion of one's labour which one inputs into a given product which is socially necessary is value created.
Now, accepting the labour theory of value would imply an acceptance that surplus value is a valid concept, or that exploitation - ie the unfair expropriation of surplus value from proletarians by capitalists - exists.
And of course, that would lead to a major internal contradiction of capitalism.
By minimising the wages of workers to maximise profit, while slowing the release of money into the economy by capitalists due to primitive accumulation, workers do not consume as much as capitalism produces. Economic crises are inherent to capitalism.
And you would therefore subscribe to Marxist economics. Congratulations.
>>79493368
Pic unrelated.
>>79493368
>By minimising the wages of workers to maximise profit
That's not how capitalism works though. In a truly free market, profit won't be maximized when you "exploit" the workers.
>>79493734
So how then would profit be maximised?
>>79492940
You're contradicting yourself then. Basic capitalist theory is that the value of a good/service is a function of it's demand, crossed by it's supply. If a good/service is valued because of it's demand, then by necessity it must also be a finite (scarce) good/service, otherwise it would be valueless. When faced with a valid criticism of the LTV, you've reasoned yourself into the idea that the Supply/Demand theory of value is the correct one instead.
Fuck off, Marxist.
>>79493850
there's an equilibrium point so to speak. In a free market, when a worker is dissatisfied with the wages, the owners would go bankrupt if they do not give a raise. Conversely, if the owners feel that the wages are too high, he will hire people willing to work for lower wages. There's no true "exploitation" in that sense.
>>79493945
I really do not see where supply and demand per se are incompatible with Marxian economics. If you could point that out to me that would be great.
there is another picture of hamster jimbo
>>79494131
But this has nothing to do with prices. This is a question of profit.
And of course this can be sufficiently discussed with the theory of alienation, wage fetishism and reification, while inevitably result in any form of capitalism.
>>79494282
what sexi
my gook penis is a hard
>>79494353
but your premise was
> workers do not consume as much as capitalism produces
this is untrue if workers get sufficient wages which is supposed to occur in a free market
>theory of alienation, wage fetishism and reification
I am not familiar with these terms, and why would they result in capitalism?
>>79494200
Supply and demand is antithetical to the Marxist theory of economics. Marxism claims that labor has an innate value, this is the core of the LTV. You can twist the wording all you want, dance semantic circles for all I care, call it "Socially responsible" labor or whatever, but at the end of the day, labor's only value is it's demand. Labor is by definition scarce (The opposite, non-scarce labor, defies the laws of physics) so I omit it from the normal supply/demand curve. You cannot simultaneously claim that the LTV (the foundation of marxist economics) is valid while admitting that labor's value is related to demand.
You, like many marxists, are a walking pile of contradictions.
Off topic, but Singapore, can you confirm or deny the criminality-of-chewing-gum meme?
>>79494579
Since you want to talk about profit and wages, so we shall. Keep in mind, however, that this is related but not identical to the earlier points on prices.
Bourgeois economics has always ignored the duality between the market and the workplace, the twin realms of exchange and production.
Sufficient wages do not result from the free exchange of goods and services. They do not result from, well, anywhere.
The terms come from Marx's and Engels's treatment of sociology, in particular the ways in which the superstructure - culture, ideology, etc - disguise and supplement the economic base of capitalism.
Alienation results when workers are divorced from the true nature of their economic backgrounds. Wage fetishism and reification are simply examples of alienation. For example, the worker is alienated from their labour and its contribution to society because there is a smokescreen of wages between the labour and the worker. Wages obscure that value is being taken unfairly by capitalists from workers.
>>79486888
I think it is quite valid.
It cuts to the fundamental goal of economic progress, which is to create by more by doing less.
However, i feel it is very much just theory. It implies the only true way to progress the economy is by technological advancement. I dont disagree with this notion, but i dont see any worthwhile application of it in our current system
Never post that picture again.
>>79495117
The meme is real. The illiberal one-party "democracy" here works really well for capitalist development though. Same with China, that's like a fucking anti-democratic capitalistic machine.
>>79495314
>Sufficient wages do not result from the free exchange of goods and services
I don't see why that doesn't happen in a free market. Theoretically speaking, shouldn't this lead to sufficient wages?
>In a free market, when a worker is dissatisfied with the wages, the owners would go bankrupt if they do not give a raise. Conversely, if the owners feel that the wages are too high, he will hire people willing to work for lower wages.
Ok then, if my understanding of alienation is correct, then alienation only occurs when the wages are unfair, which is the premise i think we are fixated on right now.
>>79495364
The LTV reveals where value comes from. In this way, carried out to its logical conclusions, capitalism is full of damning internal contradictions which only lead to proletarianisation, an impoverishment of individuals, exploitation and daylight thievery, state oppression, alienation from society, environmental destruction, war and imperialism, racism and sexism, and so on.
To say something is the LTV is pure theory is folly. It describes and predicts our economic reality.
>>79495595
I wouldn't see how. The free market is discussed by bourgeois economists as separate from the realm of production, and therefore market forces have no impact on wage equilibria.
Also, no. Alienation are the social conditions upon which exploitation is justified. For example, the nation concept can be dissected and shown to be arbitrary. Yet, even without a concrete base, it persists because nationalism is a strong driving force for capitalism. Nationalism, hence, is in this way alienating.
>>79495637
Not if value itself is also a theoretical concept.
>>79494884
I don't see what you're trying to get at, and I don't know what the fuck you think Marxian economics is all about. Do some reading before you talk. Supply and demand is a crucial part of Marxian economics.
>>79495915
Even if it were, the predictions made by the LTV are still accurate. That's what a theory is: a set of descriptions of reality which are consistent with observations.
In the same way, an atomic is a theoretical object, in the context of the atomic theory.
>>79495824
>The free market is discussed by bourgeois economists as separate from the realm of production, and therefore market forces have no impact on wage equilibria.
Do you agree with this statement? I find this highly dubious. Free market and production seem intuitively linked, workers can choose where to work, meaning the wages must approach equilibrium.
>>79496129
What predictions does it make?
>>79496134
Capitalists must maximise profits to put more capital into companies, so exploitation is everywhere.
Say exploitation didn't exist. Then say one company suddenly decided to exploit its workers. Now, that company can then put some of those profits back into itself, producing more than its competitors. In order for other companies to stay afloat, they too must cut the wages of their workers.
Say then, that exploitation is rife. Obviously, if a company were to pay its workers fairly, it wouldn't be able to stay competitive. Workers might flock to this non-exploitative company, but not so much so that it would still be able to stay afloat. And of course, a smart capitalist would slowly decrease wages yet again, making the workers offer to sell their labour power for even lower wages.
Do you see how crushing and defeating capitalism is, now?
>>79496421
Check my earlier reply. >>79495637
>>79496617
How does LTV necessarily predict such things about capitalism?
>>79496864
You would have to read leftist texts on the societal effects of capitalism, whose internal contradictions lead to such results. Those contradictions can be analysed with the LTV, along with historical materialism. Maybe dialectic materialism to a smaller degree.
>>79495965
>Original question was "Anyone here have any valid objections to the labour theory of value?"
>someone gives valid criticism based on a reducto ad absurdum, in this case saying a typewriter would have innate value based on TLV. This is clearly not the case
>OP responds that only socially necessary labor is valuable
>OP further agrees that labor's value is determined by how much society demands it
>In doing so, OP admits that labor has no innate or objective value, it's value is determined by demand
>OP is too much of a retarded marxist to see that he's blatantly contradicted the premise of his own topic
Enjoy samefagging your thread. 31 posts out of 66 replies? Fucking pathetic.
>>79496552
>
Capitalists must maximise profits to put more capital into companies, so exploitation is everywhere.
That's only present in crony capitalism. In this setting, the market isn't truly free.
>Say exploitation didn't exist. Then say one company suddenly decided to exploit its workers. Now, that company can then put some of those profits back into itself, producing more than its competitors. In order for other companies to stay afloat, they too must cut the wages of their workers.
In a free market, the workers won't work for the company that is exploiting them. It's basically like going on strike except this is done with no regulation.
>Workers might flock to this non-exploitative company, but not so much so that it would still be able to stay afloat.
theoretically, in a free market, all the workers would leave. Why work for someone who would pay lower than the other?
>And of course, a smart capitalist would slowly decrease wages yet again, making the workers offer to sell their labour power for even lower wages.
the minute the wages are decreased, the workers can work for a company that pays higher, or start one even. Have you heard of the Bertrand competition model> It's similar to this, except in it's about wages and not pricing.
>>79497098
All labour has within it some portion of useful labour. How hard is that to understand?
>>79492422
You answered nothing. How do you determine what is socially necesary?
In my opinion iPads are not necessary fr
Or a society to work,does that mean that the LTV doesnt apply to the production of iPads?
>>79494282
God.. he looks like a sickly proportioned naked turkey.
it's crazy how i didn't realize all of the controversial redpill stuff that hue said in almost every episode. i guess before i started breaking the conditioning my mind just couldn't handle it.
oh, and to the op,
>>79486888
>>79486888
my objection is that you are gay
Remember that episode where Carl's butt got pregnant?
That was my very first fap.
>>79492820
>. By failing to grasp the way value is created through labour
This is false. Labour creates 0 objective value. The surplux is created during the transition. Value is created by the seller/the buyer,not by labour itself.
>>79492441
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp5E4I8c6Qk
how far can you make it
faggot
>>79497044
I dont see how it proves it. Its just an analytical tool
>>79486888
Hey remember that time ever in fucking history that the amount of labor that went into something determined its value instead of what people were willing to pay for it?
Yeah! Me neither, and that's why the Labour Theory of Value is horseshit, because it isn't fucking true.
It's pretty rare that you get an open and shut case like this--except when you're dealing with Marx, then for some reason it seems to come up pretty often.
>>79497099
All forms of free market capitalism devolve into crony capitalism. It is profitable to alienate people, and so they do.
Working for the company with less exploitation is still choosing the lesser of two evils. Also, the fact that there is an imbalance of knowledge between bourgeoisie and proletariat means that workers cannot optimally discern between a choice of more or less exploitation. The worker, in addition, might not even know they are being exploited. Also, companies eventually exploit their workers until they receive living wages. Hell, they can totally receive sub-living wages, as long as welfare exists. Welfare is simply another tool of the capitalist class to artificially create unemployment, creating the social pressure to drive competition so workers sell their labour for less. Welfare also makes the (dwindling) middle class pay for what companies should rightfully give their workers.
I cannot give a thorough explanation of the inevitability of exploitation at the current moment. However, I can try to find and recommend some good sources, empirical and theoretical.
Overall, the problem I have with your evaluation is similar to the issue I take with the Austrian school of economics; ie, that economics is purely economics, treated as if it were in a vacuum external to social considerations like the agency of the proletarian or the theory of alienation.
>>79497275
No, the LTV applies to iPads because there is a social demand for them. I don't determine what is socially necessary, society does that for us.
>>79497207
Bold claim. Are you going to actually try to present evidence that all labor has value? Sometimes I work pretty hard on the toilet, I should eat more fiber I guess, does that have value? No wait, let me guess, you'll tell me to read marxist literature and educate myself because even you have no fucking idea what you're on about. Stop presenting claims with no evidence and explain your reasoning.
>>79497429
Then you would have to show that value is subjective.
And so the question arises, how do subjective desires translate into value, which is quantitative? And how do these desires, which are of different sorts (my utility for cotton is not the same as my utility for silver), come to equate in the market?
I don't go around everyday with my Preference-ometer TM discerning the value of the different products I come across.
Any subjective theory of value has to remove all of capitalism in its focus to consider simply one case of exchange, ignoring all of reality.
The LTV, on the other hand, gives us insights into how value truly comes about.
>>79497807
>>79497807
>All forms of free market capitalism devolve into crony capitalism
There is no real evidence of this.
I agree with you that welfare is not good for a free market model of economics.
>he worker, in addition, might not even know they are being exploited
This is a fair point.
>However, I can try to find and recommend some good sources, empirical and theoretical.
Sure, I'm open to some reading.
>Overall, the problem I have with your evaluation is similar to the issue I take with the Austrian school of economics
I know very little of economics ( I background in math), I'm just thinking hopefully reasonably, so I guess you are right when you say I am seeing economics as purely economics.
>>79498045
I'm not interested in continuing this conversation with you. Clearly you find it very difficult to understand that the labour in question is socially necessary labour.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UltE6U4t8Vc
Check out the rest of his videos for a thorough understand of the LTV that captures all the theory's subtleties.
>>79497876
then aren't you saying that there is a subjective demand for ipads. Which turns into labour demand to produce them, which means that the subjective theory of value is related to the labour theory of value. With the difference just being the profit
>>79498081
I will use the concept of the state apparatus to discussion the devolution of free market capitalism.
The state apparatus is the entity through which, by legislative and political means, the capitalist class achieves its interests. Only in capitalism do governments and states overlap inextricably.
States must expand in order to fulfill the interests of capitalists. Money commands power, and this power manifests in the influence lobbyists and plutocrats have over political decisions. These include economic regulations that favour monopolies.
Similar arguments can be given for other aspects of society, eg the coopting of trade unions by companies.
>>79498059
>Any subjective theory of value has to remove all of capitalism in its focus to consider simply one case of exchange, ignoring all of reality.
That is garbage. Labour theory of value is retarded. What don't you understand about subjective preferences. You choose between things, everyone can do that, therefore there is values at which a marginal decision is made and a value arises.
>>79498059
>how do subjective desires translate into value, which is quantitative? And how do these desires, which are of different sorts (my utility for cotton is not the same as my utility for silver), come to equate in the market?
Supply and demand. A 70 years old mercedes is more expemsive than a new one,mainly due colectionists,despite being worse in every quantitave aspect.
> I don't go around everyday with my Preference-ometer TM discerning the value of the different products I come across.
You do. If oranges are too expensive for you,you just dont buy them. Your judgement is part of determining the value of something.
> Any subjective theory of value has to remove all of capitalism in its focus to consider simply one case of exchange, ignoring all of reality.
Nope. Supply and demand determines overall prices.
> The LTV, on the other hand, gives us insights into how value truly comes about.
Nope. Labour has no objective value. You can't treat it as a unit
>>79498539
Aha, good catch. Demand is always subjective. However, both theories differ in that the LTV claims that value comes into existence through social labour, but subjective value theory claims that I can "want" value into existence, that value is a thing of air as it were.
>>79498674
The answer to that is more democracy. If people are better represented and politicians were more held to their voters then that wouldn't be a problem
>>79486888
If no one is willing to pay for something, it's worthless.
If it takes me 5 hours to make something that takes you 2 hours, is my product somehow more valuable, even if they're almost identical?
>>79498794
The value comes from the continual maintenance of the old Mercedes. This maintenance counts as social labour since people value old cars more than new ones. If they didn't the maintenance would not be useful labour.
>>79498674
All of what you said makes sense, but that's no longer in the setting of a free market. The government have no say in the economic policies so the point is then moot.
Also, have you looked into Bertrand's duopoly in terms of wages? What did you make of it?
>>79498859
That is where the second part of the LTV comes in. The LTV considers labour in the abstract; that is, homogeneous labour. All labour is limited by technology, so it makes sense to speak of an average labour power put into the production of a given commodity. If we were the only people that produced that something, then you would earn less in the same amount of time.
>>79498923
Then, again, that's not being realistic. Also, I've been too busy replying to these guys to read up on that.
>>79498821
But that's not possible, since for that to happen, money would have to hold no social power.
>>79499120
Then you can't really criticize capitalism then, cause that's not a free market anymore. But if you want to discuss in terms of pragmatism, then crony capitalism is still the best we got.
>>79499357
So you're saying that free market capitalism can be sustained, to which I wholeheartedly disagree with. The state apparatus example is merely one example of that.
s/o to https://soundcloud.com/kintsugismusic best music so dank dudes gotta follow
>>79499484
woah what a good musician big ups
COMMUNISM WILL WIN!!!!! <3
>>79499556
C R U S H C A P I T A L I S M
LTV has merit. The fact that people pay others to do work for them is proof that labour has something to do with value.
Does it "create" value? Hmm well, depends on what you mean by value
>>79497367
>Ya gotta gas the kikes, Jimbo!
>>79498807
Value is a thing of air. Value doesn't exist in any real sense, it's entirely a human idea that's placed upon objects or acts. There is no value particle, no value atom, not even a value molecule or some such. Value is not a physical thing that can be synthesized like making water from hydrogen and oxygen atoms, it's a construct of the human mind. Again with your endless contradictions. You admit that things have subjective value when you say things like "social demand", social demand is just the collective subjective valuation of a group of individuals. Those groups must be individually coming to similar conclusions for there to be a group consensus, humans are not a hive-mind. Different societies value different things differently, what, is one society objectively wrong? That's absurd.
>>79499459
We are at an impasse. Your state apparatus example can only include crony capitalism, which doesn't truly have a free market. If you want to compare crony capitalism to communism, I would still take crony capitalism. At least in crony cap, property rights still exist.
>>79499604
Marx worked on several levels of abstraction throughout Capital. Sometimes he meant value as in prices, sometimes competitive prices, sometimes other things.
Also, I had no idea singapore wanted communism.
>>79499858
Communism still respects personal property. Personal property is distinct from private property in that the latter is used to produce commodities and contain means of production.
>>79498886
Noone buys a vintage car because of how much it was maintained over the years, people buy vintage shit because of their history, culture, art and emotional value.
You can see an old vintage guitar that hasn't been maintained for 50 years and yet if a great and loved guitarist had played it, it'll be of great value to someone, even if it was locked in some basement somewhere.
>>79500364
>contain means of production
I always had an issue with this. What exactly constitutes as means of production. Say I start making my own products in my home and selling them. Is my home no longer private property and are my tools now means of production?
Also, does singapore have a large communism support party? Communism doesn't work very well, it ends even worse than crony cap. Pic very related.
>>79500506
Alternatively, it could have been destroyed in wars, stolen by bandits, lost to rust, forgotten over time, etc.
>>79500616
If you require the house to produce the commodity, then yes.
Singapore really fucking hates communists. There are sedition laws here that specifically target political extremists.
>>79500616
Also please upload larger version, thanks.
>>79500808
>If you require the house to produce the commodity, then yes
ok then, let's give this a more abstract turn. Remember earlier in this thread I mentioned the value of ideas? I am quite literally the means of production of the idea. Am I then public property?
>Singapore really fucking hates communists
for good reasons, mind you
>Also please upload larger version, thanks.
it's basically a pic of Bernie "King Cuck" Sanders taking away people's property (joke but srs)
>>79500616
Communism faces the problem of being inherently at-war with capitalism. Any communist country will be at war with the entire world, and no country is going to succeed when it has to fight literally everyone.
In all likelihood, if communists could figure out a way to establish "socialism in one country" without pissing everyone else off, they'd be able to make something that works. They're so focused on creating a global revolution, though, that they end up making too many enemies and getting destroyed.
>>79501009
Nationalistic tendencies of communism are a fucking cancer though. Though I definitely would like to see an experiment of two non-interacting societies, one capitalist and one communist. Either way, socialism in one state will never work; the whole reason the US fought those proxy wars is because communism poses an ideological threat.
Just to make things clear, I'm a Luxemburgist, and am for global revolution where advanced capitalism has been achieved in almost all parts of the world. So naturally I'm against Marxist-Leninists (or more familiarly Stalinists) who reject historical materialism and go straight from feudalism to socialism and advocate for socialism in one state.
Global revolution is not impossible. Soon the proletariat will realise that national boundaries are meaningless in the face of class struggle, and that solidarity is the only way.
>>79500994
What in specific turns you off from communism? It would be great if you could inform me of your political position as well (I suspect you are a libertarian/ancap?), so I can better understand what to focus on.
>>79501672
>>79501672
Tbh, I don't really have one. I like the idea of free market capitalism, so I guess you would say ancap then?
Remember earlier in this thread I mentioned the value of ideas? I am quite literally the means of production of the idea. Am I then public property?
My issue with communism is that I don't buy into to the the labor value theory. If you think about it, what really is behind the supply and demand? Most companies actually create the demand first and then supply it. Nobody demanded a phone before it was invented. This is why I emphasized the value of an idea. All commodities come from ideas, which is seemingly not quantifiable in terms of labor.
Not an econ majour, but if this is the definition of the Labour theory of value: "The labor theory of value says that the value of a finished good correlates solely with the number of labor hours required to produce it."
Then that means mountains are near priceless, when considering a geological market of sorts because of the time it takes to produce them, but they are not as worthy as, say, coral reefs or other forms of life (point: these also take long hours to create, but this does not mean that it is the time that gives them an intrinsic worth).
You seem like a good guy who wants to learn more and not be in an echo chamber, so why are you defending literal Marxist ideology? Do you have any specific reasons, what sparked the interest for this?
>>79502062
I don't really find that contradictory with the LTV. Also I'm off for tonight so if you want to continue this discussion add me here. /profile.php?id=100010164638716
(Add https dot www dot facebook dot com behind the URL given.)
>>79502329
k added, I don't use that website much though.
>>79502062
So you identify with anarcho-capitalism? I'm all for the capitalist part, but can you provide an argument against regulation, because it seems to me that merchants will basically run circles around you when everything is unregulated (and don't say people will see he inherent flaw in malpractice in regards to how a business conducts their operations, we all know where iPhones come from).
Prices of goods deviate from the cost of production all the fucking time.
>>79502141
The labour in question has the following three properties:
1. Homogeneity.
2. Social necessity.
3. Being human labour.
I definitely not for echo chambers. I was introduced to Marxism by my friend half a year ago. It fully systematised the problems I found with capitalism. A very recent observation I made is that freedom and equality are both diametrically opposed in capitalism, and are both scarce resources; only in communism can we have both, with direct democracy and environmental protection without exploitation.
>>79502581
That doesn't contradict the LTV. Prices fluctuate. What they fluctuate around is value.
>>79501559
The first problem is that imperialism will never allow advanced capitalism to be achieved in most parts of the world. The super exploitation of the third-world working class means they are never in a position to organize or grow their power politically.
The second problem is that imperialism, by its very nature, divides the working class between the first-world and the third-world. As long as the working class in the first-world materially benefits from exploiting the working class in the third-world, their class interests will differ. They will not unite, because it is in the first-world working class's best interest to ensure that workers in the third-world remain exploited.
How can global revolution even be achieved when the world is in this state?
I'm off for tonight. If some other filthy commie wants to take my place defending the LTV I'd be more than glad to allow that.
Remember, feed your Zionist (((overlords))).
>>79502663
Yes, value in exchange and value in use changes, this is what influences the price. Not the inputs.
>>79502567
>because it seems to me that merchants will basically run circles around you when everything is unregulated
I personally believe that there would be a wage equilibrium in a truly free market. >>79494131
There's a few theories for this like Bertrand's duopoly and the Edgeworth model.
>>79502716
Capitalism is defined by three conditions:
1. Private ownership of the means of production.
2. Capitalist relations of production in which the bourgeoisie exploit the workers.
3. Free exchange of goods and services in the market.
Imperialism just creates more proletarians. Global revolution can happen if workers, first- or third-world, unite and fight back against their oppressors.
>>79502899
No, use-value does not affect price. That's not what Marxian economics claims.
>>79502584
I can understand the social need, but I don't understand the first and third points; literally being a human labour? Does not make grammatical sense. How does homogeneity play a part in labour, what makes 'similar' labour better? I am not arguing a point against it, I just don't know what it is specifically referring to.
Also, it what way is freedom opposed in capitalism, doesn't capitalism promote individuals to innovate in order to compete?
>>79502823
Did you just out yourself, m8? Well, nice chatting with you.
>>79502955
How would the employer go bankrupt, this assumes that one worker shares the identical plight of others, how do you know Paco isn't okay with that wage? It just sets the stage for mass immigration of low-skilled "replaceables".
Not familiar with those theories, I'll look into it.
>>79503050
Well it does, and that is one reason why Marxian economics is bunk.
>>79503100
I mean that freedom has to be compromised for equality and vice versa. See >>79499068 for my explanation and Kapitalism101's videos on Youtube for a more in-depth explanation of the homogeneity criterion.
You can add me on Facebook, I linked it above. I have no sympathies for Zionists, but I'm against antisemitism as well.
>>79503237
Onus probandi.
>>79502716
Addendum: It is fallacious to equivocate the general political actions/motives of the first-world (neoliberalism is a good recent example) with the working class of the first-world.
>>79503357
Alright, I'll make a bunk account so you won't dox me because you're a literal Marxist.
>>79503385
A perceived use for a good effects its value. Done.
>>79503100
>this assumes that one worker shares the identical plight of others, how do you know Paco isn't okay with that wage?
Well, can Paco live on that wage? And why wouldn't Paco just go work for the other guy that pays him more?
>>79503550
le SJW doxxing memes
>>79503628
Consent can be and is manufactured.
>>79503628
Affect. Only because I made the same mistake.
>>79503641
Paco is subhuman, of course he can. How does a chink live as a literal slave, they will find a way, sacrificing modern luxuries in the process.
Also, Paco realizes the competitiveness of certain jobs, and takes the lowest hanging fruit to ensure permanent residence.
>>79503653
Well, you do have a pretty big body count.
Also, explain this: >>79503687
Elaborate please.
>>79503687
What?
>>79503820
>Paco realizes the competitiveness of certain jobs
in this case we are talking about competing jobs, like car companies that produce similar commodities. The wages then should be equal for them to stay competitive. This is where the equilibrium comes in place.
>>79503956
By setting the employment bar as low as possible for the most subhuman to apply, they are being as profitable as possible because they don't have to pay $25 to Sharon from accounting to sit and talk all day; instead, they pay $2.50 to Paco who works for 16 hours a day just so that his twelve cousins and abuela can get a visa because enough of them muddy of the demographics=equal representation, gringo! That way, they pocket more. I'm not sure, this is all speculation, I didn't write any papers, arguing for arguments sake.
>>79503839
>>79503820
Human wants change over time, and do not exist in a vacuum. Trends are set all the time, eg it is fashionable to own a car or a smartphone. But this is actually a really shitty counterargument, I realise.
Either way I could go into more on why use-value doesn't affect price, but I won't because my time here is limited. The quick answer is that use-values are subjective and cannot be translated into quantitative exchange-values. See this for more detail. >>79498059
>>79504341
The first few pages of Capital actually demonstrate this really well.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
Also, leaf, you haven't added me yet. This is my last post. If you can't find the link just use Ctrl-F and search for "facebook".
>>79489722
the eagle is a shoop right? There's already enough shame built into using a double-caster office chair without plastering it in out-of-place patriotic symbols.
>>79504192
Ok, let's make an assumption that people in employment want the highest paying job possible. Paco would then rather choose the job that pays 25/hr. So a competing company would then raise the wages to 30/hr. Obviously, this comes with less profit, which will hurt the profit a little, so the adjust the wages as well as the prices of the product until they are maximized. Basically a balance between the incentive of the worker to work and the profit that can be achieved.
>>79504341
>The quick answer is that use-values are subjective and cannot be translated into quantitative exchange-values.
Thats why value is subjective, you dolt. It effects the value and it cannot be translated directly into exchange value. Hence why we prefer money over barter, it makes it a lot easier to exchange as value is subjective and I don't want to try and sell by spinach pies for milk so I can use the milk to pay my electricity bill.
>>79504648
idk, I want one though. If I don't see you on another thread then Happy early Independence day my fellow burger.
>>79504775
I don't have time to give a full answer. I recommend reading the first chapter of Capital and watch the following series:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3F695D99C91FC6F7
>>79504640
Nigga I have to make another account, I'm not jeopardizing my identity for you. I will start a thread about LTV and Marxist stuff tomorrow, at this same time.
>>79504768
Pretty valid assumption, I fall into that category.
Devil's advocate again: I don't want to pay an extra $50 for my iPhone 69 just because Paco wanted to get the most bang for his hour spent so TelaCola had to hike up wages to attract his attention.
>>79505153
You might not want to spend the extra 50 but rich Stacy McTits might. So let's say TelaCola decreases the price of iphone 1488 by $5, and now Stacy and Chad both would buy the phone. You might not, but more people would be willing to spend it. So the price of the phone is adjusted to maximize the profit, all the while Paco is getting paid sufficient wages to keep the market competitive.
>>79505405
TelaCola had better bring their best features to iPhone 1488 to stay in the market, though, or else Stacy and Chad will flock to another brand that has more shiny colours. This is assuming their brand is as reputable as, say, Apple is with literal iPhones. I wager that their brand is slowly dying because of the price increases (except Apple gets the best of both worlds, raising prices in China is like adding a few cents to attract workers a.k.a. literal peasants, while simultaneously "adjusting to account for the wage hike" by increasing prices a few hundred dollars.
>>79486888
I can take a shit on a canvas and sell it for millionsto some Jewish art gallery while your 10 years of painting fails to sell.
You could spend hours banging your wife and not satisfy her as well as Chad pulling up her skirt and quickie creampie banging her in 3 mins in the back of the club on a "girls night out"
There you go LTV BTFO forever.
>>79505703
Keep in my mind we discussing this in a framework of a totally free market. These chinese would also rather work for TelaCola. And TelaCola, the mexican intellectuals that they are, would run Apple out of business buy establishing their own base in China, thus stealing all the workers.
>>79492504
Public goods by their very nature are not actually in demand as no one is prepared to willingly pay for it uncoersed.
Societal demand, public goods etc has been refuted for literally decades. Where have you been, in a coma for 30 years?
>>79494884
This.
As for OP i think you really have done some doublethink mental gymnastics here intentionally or not, you're mistaken lad.
Also who is this "society" if not a group of indivdiuals? Goodnight sweet prince.
>>79496552
> Capitalists must maximise profits to put more capital into companies
False. Value is not confined to soley profits.
>>79505929
But that's immoral, is it not? Would regulation in this regard (to protect worker loyalty) be an impeachment of rights and detrimental, or necessary to avoid outcomes like total bankruptcy of a company (from lack of a workforce). I'd say we need some base form of regulation based around moral objectives to avoid this kind of usury-tier manipulation.
>>79505948
>>79506133
>>79506263
Mate, these are all valid points, but OP said he had to leave.
>>79506349
Damn... Oh well
>>79506463
I'll start a thread on this stuff at this same time tomorrow because I'm interested in learning more about econ theory and arguments against/for models.
>>79506349
>But that's immoral, is it not?
the free market has no feelings
>bankruptcy of a company
this happened because Apple decided to hire chinese to work for 1 cent a day.
>I'd say we need some base form of regulation based around moral objectives
Competently antithetical to capitalism
>>79506602
Very valid point regarding feelings, but I am referring to monopolies, not about some hyperemotional CEO who puts a bullet into his head because he went under. Do you believe that monopolies are just the path of least resistance for companies that are competitive enough to attain such a status, or that they are detrimental?
I'm just saying, the nose knows, you're setting yourself up for disaster. Does this mean anytime a government interferes in the free market, it is for the worse? Did the Nazis do this to an extent, I heard they were pro-capitalist, but some level of docile socialism, if you can call it that.
>>79502716
This guy has it right. And after reducing the middle class to nothing and smearing the lower class into one big shitheap paid at the level of fucking Bangladesh across the globe, the corps will still sit pretty. Why? Look at Brazil. Their fucking retarded proles keep reelecting the same leftist government that allows and encourages their exploitation. That's our future. We aren't a tad bit wiser than those shitskins, only richer, for the moment.
>>79506906
>monopolies
monopolies won't exist in a free market through immoral means. Monopolies are unable to sustain themselves through immoral means either. Counter-intuitively, the most competitive market is actually the most moral.
>Does this mean anytime a government interferes in the free market, it is for the worse?
Yes
I'm not that familiar with the economic policies of the third reich, but claiming to be NatSoc somehow makes me think that they had quite a lot of government regulations on the market.
>>79507353
On the last point, so do I.
Again, devil's advocate. How are monopolies unable to sustain themselves? Do they just naturally disintegrate? I find that hard to believe.
>>79507485
>How are monopolies unable to sustain themselves?
I mentioned they are unable to sustain themselves through immoral means like worker exploitation. Another company just needs to come along with better wages and the monopoly is lost.
>Counter-intuitively, the most competitive market is actually the most moral.
meant to say
Counter-intuitively, the freest market is actually the most moral.
>>79486888
>what is the transformation problem?
>>79507660
I'm the CEO of TelaCola and I have amassed such wealth and influence that I am able to use force to ensure my bidding. What is stopping me? I agree that the allure of a better deal is a fundamental factor when considering human decisions, but so is power.
>>79507827
>I have amassed such wealth and influence that I am able to use force to ensure my bidding
what do you mean? like mafia style stuff?
>>79507950
keep in mind that criminal activity is still monitored by the justice system
>>79507950
On some level, taking "extensive measures" to ensure the most desirable outcome becomes a reality. Whatever that entails. Basically the anarcho part of it.
>>79508090
I wouldn't necessary subscribe to anarchy. Government is good for military, but not much else.
>>79487115
Fairy god parents was much better
>>79508236
I'm not sure, AnCap sounds too good to be true, too many dominoes have to fall into place. The whole Paco debate is incredibly undesirable for me because that good deal factor I was talking about can lead to some pretty open borders, just like how regulations impede growth, so do open borders. It assumes the best in people and that the system can magically account for worse case scenarios (it can to an extent), but I think you basically described Juden's wet dream. I have had to think about freedom vs chaos for a while now (in terms of econ and ideology, like letting Commies run amok), and I've seen the underbelly of what happens when everyone is free.
Idk, this was eye-opening, I'll start another thread an hour earlier tomorrow.
>>79508452
I'm not really ancap either. Nor would I support open borders. But as mentioned earlier in the thread ancap can control the market with open borders simply due to its libertarian nature. And you are right when it comes to personal freedom vs responsibility. hopefully see you tomorrow then,
>>79508752
Yup, cheers, I'll label it as the Singaporean Marxist apologizer thread.
>>79508452
It is too good to be true. Scholars like de Jasay (1989) have argued that anarcho capitalist forms of governance will not last as governments power comes from its greater comparative power than that of its citizens. A weak form of government will be overthrown by stronger powers which can easily lead to military rule/dictatorship. The country acts as Hobbes' Leviathan. Some freedoms are sacrificed for protection and other benefits of the Leviathan. If the 'Leviathan' (Sovereign state) is to weak it will be overthrown. Anarcho capitalism allows for cartel like behaviour. There is a greater incentive for a state to provide a decent life for its citizens that cartel like factions that would inevitably rise and take over. Rothbard's Anarcho Capitalism is like Communism. It only works on paper as it does not take into account the nature of humans.
>>79509283
>t
Apologies for punctuation. Wrote this quickly.
>>79509283
I thought Hoppe was AnCap? I can respect this point, though, it had crossed my mind, why not just take all the marbles if the state doesn't employ enough intimidating forces?
>>79492504
>whatever society demands that is social necessity.
have you heard the term "circular logic?"
>>79492820
which part of that was an argument
>>79509283
I mean, the reason the Americans don't overthrow their kike overlords is because they are scared of the tanks that would steamroll them (also heavily influencing the defeat would be the military spirit that has been stripped in some Brave New World-type way, paired with mass defeatism due to 1984 tactics. The literal military's allegiance will also be pivotal in the long run.)
Not an argument against the right to arm, just that it would be a bloody war and I don't think the fatties are up for it.
>>79493368
does consent, exist?
>>79509711
See
>>79508996
This thread has been live for 5 or so hours, bound to die. I'm starting one tomorrow same time, at around 1 ish am West Coast.
>>79509283
Im not seeing an argument, just a lot of fear and projection
The majority of states have failed, and carried out worse than your doomsday script.
yet statists keep believing in something to good to be true
>>79508452
>It assumes the best in people and that the system can magically account for worse case scenarios
you are thinking of statism
>>79486888
I like because you came as the average educated left tard
Basically anytime discussion got too hot you deflected with a link to somewhere to read some else's views
MEMES
Also I bet you're that faggot Singaporean attention whore
>>79509707
That's not why people don't revolt
People don't revolt because life doesn't require them too
Life right now is WAY too comfy
Even if we didn't have Trump no one would be revolting
When you ask why people don't stand up and revolt instead ask yourself if your neighbor is willing to give toilet paper or some such other equivalent for a time
This also gets into the relevancy of Marx since in Marx's time the working class had legitimate reason to revolt (especially in the cities)
Those people had fucking nothing
When you have nothing to lose your more easily swayed into extreme actions
>>79509993
I think the first sentence established the argument.
>>79510127
Easy, if the rules native, full-blood members of society set forth are broken, the state imprisons you or kills you. One and done.
I am referring to accounting for worst case scenarios by saying that the path of least resistance in a true free market will lead to some form of economic prosperity whenever there is a lack of regulatory forces to keep leashed companies from doing _____.
>>79510272
Valid point, but that kind of ties into my allure of maximum pleasure/luxury to create a docile working class (à la Brave New World).
>>79509483
Hobbes was very pro state (Leviathan). He argued that without the state man would enter a primal state. But yeah Anarcho Cap can't, and doesn't last. It would become a fractured warring society with new groups all vying for power. As can be seen in countries across Europe before the state got more power and they unified. Ie Anglo Saxon Britain - Wessex, Northumbria etc. The numerous Italian states that unified, German states. Irish tribes. All individuals commanding their own troops vying for supremacy. I really don't think it could be possible. A smaller government yes, but go too small and someone else will take over.
Ie America becomes Anarcho Cap and becomes divided with no standing army. Russia says okay then and invades. With the warring factions already divided conquer is easy. See England's involvement in Ireland for real example.
>>79509993 Then give me an example of a successful anarcho capitalist state.
Inb4 you give Somalia as a successful example, kek.
>>79510710
My bad, I thought you were referring to Hans-Herman Hoppe, not Hobbes.
Otherwise, this is the most relevant and powerful counterargument to AnCap societies I have heard, has some pretty compelling cases. I do enjoy the idea of a free market society just to see what would happen, I just think that some limits need to be set in order to prevent chaos when it inevitably unfolds itself.
>>79510411
I wouldn't call it luxury necessarily
It's just that everyone in the first world has their base needs met
If Americans were starving then you would see serious change
If a government gleans ANY knowledge from history it's that people are less angry when they have a bed to sleep in, a space to live, and food to eat
It would be one thing if it was unsustainable (like bread and circus in Rome) but it's not
No normie actually gives a shit about their nation, their race, freedom, the world, marxism, rich globalists, etc they just want to live their life
>>79511150
Are you a normie? Am I? Are the majority of the people?
My point is that the manipulation of that basal requirement for accommodation is something the government/media is abusing to keep us docile because they recognize it is a niche that needs to be filled (more aptly, a neg-hole that needs to be pozzed).
>>79487115
>>79508350
Jimmy Timmy Power Hour was a pretty sweet crossover.
