[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ausneets / hikki / ideas / leftpol / russian / shame / trap / wx ]

/leftpol/ - Left Politics

Winner of the 62rd Attention-Hungry Games
/eris/ - Wherein Is Explained Absolutely Everything Worth Knowing About Absolutely Anything.

November 2018 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

File: 679fba2fff0f699⋯.jpeg (123.41 KB, 622x782, 311:391, marx 1.jpeg)


I'll start:

The exchange value of a commodity is determined by its socially necessary labour time.


Definitions, please.


Proletarians of the world unite.

I hope we all agree on that at least.


File: 5a6c136f003ab39⋯.pdf (521.89 KB, value-price-profit.pdf)


It's only 30 pages long. Come back with questions after you do some reading - you will learn more.


I don't agree at all. What if I find a nugget of gold on the ground?



You best be trolling son.

Notice the use of the important term socially necessary - this means that the exchange value (note, this is not the same term as "price") is determined by the average market amount of labour time required to re-produce that same item.

It is uncommon to find nuggets of gold on the ground. If it were common, the exchange value of a nugget of gold would be far lower.



There are all sorts of rare things that naturally exist and took no labor time to produce at all and that aren't "useful" at all that have high exchange values.



Again, your use of the word "rare" is absolutely fundamental to your point, isn't it? They are rare. Therefore, they take more labour time to obtain; that labour time is simply "hunting" for them or acquiring the knowledge or tools to get them.



That's highly unlikely. In most cases good requires mining, which relies on some mixture of labor and capital to do. You finding a nugget of gold that requires no processing does not disprove that there is an average amount of labor required to extract and process gold.



Absurd. Imagine the case of the musician. In a single hour he produces a a concert that he might exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars in ticket sales.


The reality is that labor time is just ONE of the factors of production, and that its price is determined by the forces of supply and demand, just like all the other factors.



Exchange value and price are not the same things.



The price is a reflection of its exchange value, no?



Firstly, exchange value is not price. Secondly, the value of a talented musician is, again, determined by the socially necessary labour time to reproduce that quality of musician.


Price is a numerical value, while exchange value describes a comparative relation between commodities. Price hovers around exchange value, as market forces effectively pull things to their exchange value in capitalism. Deviations from exchange value in price can be explained by any number of whim or fancy from consumer or seller.





If you work it, you own it

People who extract the surplus value of the proles' labor, should stop doing that

Capitalism's inherant reliance on perpetual growth make it unsustainable and ruinous to economies, countries, people and the environment

Police use excessive force excessively often

Win10 is a turbocucked OS

Idpol is spooky cancer

The proles should not be disarmed

Catgirls are not serious business, and do not have soggy knees in and of themselves

Trumpens have Stockholm Syndrome or are actual paid shills

Surveillance is bad, at least taken as far as Burgerland and Bongistan take it

T*rkey is acting unsympathetic

Miss Piggy is destroying /leftypol/

Internet toughguys from /pol/ are laughable



And it sells for that much because it would take a long time for your average human to produce the same masterpiece.



Natural talent is a thing, just like natural valuable things are a thing. Not all useful/valuable things are produced by humans. And not all labor is equally valuable.




The difference between price and exchange value is only in the form of value the exchange takes, eg the kind and quantity of money commodity used.



If I find a way to extract gold from dirt for nothing, the price of gold will go down not because there is suddenly more gold than before, in fact there is not a single extra atom of gold around. What I did is to cut down the time to produce gold. The value of gold goes down because it takes less time to be produced.

The same thing for talent. If we could inject the knowledge of an expert surgen directly into the memory of another man, the value of a surgeon woudl go drastically down, as it's no longer necessary to train them for years (time to produce the surgeon).

What if someone is naturally talented? This is no problem, socially necessary time is a minimum average, a talented individual will profit exactly because he is working under SNLT and this profit is what the others producers are expending over the SNLT (and so wasting labour).


Tankies were a mistake.



>not because there is suddenly more gold than before, in fact there is not a single extra atom of gold around. What I did is to cut down the time to produce gold. The value of gold goes down because it takes less time to be produced.

The price of gold goes down because there is more gold on the market. Reducing the amount of labor necessary to produce something does indeed lower the exchange value of that thing, but so does reducing the amount of other factors of production necessary to produce it, like the raw materials.



I talked about value, not exchange value.



Limiting resources is increasing the socially necessary labour time required to obtain them.

Rare things take more time and effort to find than common things.



Some rare things don't need to be found at all. Rare paintings for instance.



Jesus it's like talking to a brick wall.

Rare paintings are rare because they would be near impossible to reproduce. In fact, some paintings are effectively infinitely valuable, because nobody could ever reproduce anything deemed as valuable as a DaVinci, because DaVinci is dead.


stalin did nothing wrong



Right, so the value has nothing to do with labor time in that case.



…how does it not? It's socially necessary labour time and that was stated plainly right from the start. What that means, is the average amount of labour time required to reproduce that commodity in the current market. It the reproduction of that commodity requires the reproduction of DaVinci, you're looking at pretty much infinite labour time.



Most skilled professions had to work and study to get to the point where they became skilled professionals

Yeah, there's natural talent, but natural talent is worthless if undeveloped



There's clearly some truth to the labor theory of value, and obviously wage-laborers are being exploited by the capital owners who don't work and yet make most of the money, but I don't think the LTV tells the whole story.



What doesn't it explain?



Again, that there are highly valuable things that didn't need to be produced by humans at all, and that weren't hard to find either. There just aren't many of them and are widely coveted by people willing to exchange a lot of other valuable things for them.



What are those things?



The LTV is a theory of value for the capitalist mode of production. This implies generalized commodity production, if something is not routinely produced and exchanged, it's outside what the LTV can explain.

If you try to make a theory that can explain every single market interaction you'll end up having the marginalist theory of nothing, since it is incapable of making predictions.


File: def6fa51d16d58f⋯.png (535.08 KB, 1366x768, 683:384, asasasas.png)

File: 016e70b3cc6c82a⋯.png (369.96 KB, 1366x768, 683:384, eeeeeeee.png)


supply and demand always lead the product to a sum proportional to the labour content, this is a proven fact




>The exchange value of a commodity is determined by its socially necessary labour time.

dumb and wrong lol



sorry kiddo, can't disprove the empirical evidence




Well it's not exclusively determined by it. Exchange value is in general proportional to its SNLT, not necessarily in direct relation.

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ausneets / hikki / ideas / leftpol / russian / shame / trap / wx ]