A core tenet of Marxism is that laborers are entitled to the full value of goods they produce

What does that mean? The hours?

No. You need to actually read theory before you can come here posting stupid shit and expect me to waste time on you.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm

The average amount of accumulated labour-hours it takes to make a product.

Wrong.

marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/

Wouldn't averaging it out mean that the differences in production get hidden? As in poor practices and low productivity are allowed to persist.

Well I mean you would parametrize it since not everyone works at the same rate
Abstractly speaking there's a certain "amount of labor" to be done in reaching a certain end goal, and this is conserved whether it's done quickly or slowly. With the advantage of machinery you are physically "doing more labor" and so on

No son, there's a lot more to value than that. For example, since aluminum is rarer than gold, an aluminum toaster is less valuable than a gold one.

It doesn't matter what value the owner provides to the goods. His job is to make sure they get produced in the first place.

I get that automation massively increases production. So is that "amount of labour" merely a percentage of the total amount of labour in a society? As in it becomes divided into smaller units? Because otherwise it seems like it allows laziness to foster.

And the workers won't produce goods to sustain themselves?

Again, and workers can't do this themselves?
So the owner does nothing and adds no value?

Yes. That is based upon exchange-value.
That's not what we're talking about when we say "value". That's the entire point.

No, because effectivization means that you can produce an hour of labour-time in less than an hour, and that others suddenly have to work more than an hour to produce a SNLT-hour.

Can they do it as effectively without someone leading them? Methinks if they could it would incredibly common, seeing is it's been tried countless times.

So your theory of value makes sense because it straight up ignores certain types of value? That's the message I'm getting here.

Laborers may not be entitled to all of the value, but capitalists aren't entitled to any.

>seriously implying they can't just lead their own damn selves
sage

………………………why don't they tho?

sage

There are Coops today with 70.000+ workers. Workers can, and often do, organize themselves.
However, such endeavours usually require strong unions of organization of workers, and this is often COINTELPRO'd.
Also, as coops per definition, cannot out-source their labour, capitalist firms are able to out-compete them by exploiting desperate people and living of increasing debt.

It doesn't ignore them. It just deals with Value, not Exchange-Value.
Marx and Proudhon wrote extensively about both Use-value, and Exchange-Value, but Value in SNTL-terms was a concept they dealt with outside of that.

Ever heard of Mondragon co-op? Hell there is a trucking company started in my home town in the US that is worker owned.

I'm very well aware that co-ops exist. There used to be a few in my town, though none of them lasted more than a few years. Let me rephrase the question: If co-ops are as efficient as capitalist firms, why aren't they as common?

Now why isn't exchange value relevant? I still haven't heard that.

absolutely right OP, some of the value must be then reutilized for resuplying raw materials, machine maintenance, new machines to reduce the overall SNLT, operation costs and so on

labourers are not entitled to the full value of goods they produce, they are entitled to the result of earnings minus production costs

gg no re, faggot

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost-of-production_theory_of_value

So is the other components of value a part of use value or exchange value? And why is labor the crucial aspect of whichever?

no faggot, because then another company would get an advantage and take over that portion of the market

read your basic economics

I just gave you two reasons for that.

Noone said exchange value is not relevant. The entire first chapter of Das Kapital is dedicated to it. It's absolutely an important concept in Marxian/Proudhonian economics.

However, there's more to Value than Price/exchange-value.
There's also Use-Value and Value.
And for the latter we have the SNLT.

But if time is the objective marker for determining value, that encourages sluggishness. And hours seems rather vague and imprecise.

Not exactly. Talking of "percentages" doesn't sidestep the issue of quantifying labor power. I don't see why you can't deal with it in absolute terms, even though you can't directly quantify it.
Think of it in terms of a "production function" of time, P(t), which is of the form P(x(t)) where x(t) describes a specific time productivity of labor, given our specific conditions on its use. You don't need the exact form of x but can make inferences about it based on empirical data, i.e. observing the relationship between P and t.
Like how you can trace out the unit circle in C faster, slower, or at variable rates by taking the x in e^(ix(t)) to be t/2, t, 2t, t^2, etc.

The means of production are privately owned and concentrated in the hands of relatively few people. That's the entire

gold takes a lot more labour to extract and process, faggot, the cost of production necessary to extract gold will not be any different if the exchange value of gold decreases, it's price will

megafaggot

No it doesn't. Competition and/or coordination makes sure most work at optimal efficiency, and so therefore a part of SNLT is the assumption that one works at average efficiency. No part of that encourages sluggishness unless one has a monopoly and that goes quite well to describe how actual monopolies functions, sorta validating the theory.

because co-ops have a lower rate of profit,than a privately owned, firm, because a co-op does not put economic growth as it's main goal, but labour stability

slap yourself for me

But they are just as efficient and competitive as capitalist firms, what you experienced was the fact that firms have a very large chance of failure whether they are cooperative or capitalist.

But surely "optimal efficiency" is a lot higher than merely the "average efficiency"? How on earth can you calculate the SNLT to a degree necessary for running a society? There are billions of workers and commodities

The assumption here that because efficincy is generally beneficial to the individual producer, that average efficiency approaches optimal efficiency to a large degree.
People are not going to be lazy, because if they are, they benefit less.

The SNLT for a commodity is about the average amount of time it takes to produce a commodity. Society already takes the immense labour of calculating optimal prices for maximum profit, a herculean task indeed, but one we've seem to have mastered. The same can easily be done with SNLT, in fact I am fairly sure that people already are keeping track of how many labour-hours it takes to produce commodities already.

When was that?

So if exchange value is relevant, why bother making the distinction?

Gold doesn't take any more labor to produce. It takes more effort to find it because there's less of it in the universe to begin with. That's what we call scarcity, straight guy.

If cooperatives were able to easily sustain themselves that way, cooperatives would be constantly forming to meet demands in the market. That scarcely happens. Explain.

The consequence of not striving for profit is less productivity, hence less business. That's why cooperatives don't stand a chance.

But co-ops are at least as productive as other firms if not more so.

If that were the case they'd have no trouble staying in business; in fact they would dominate the market.

LTV was proven empirically correct
users.wfu.edu/cottrell/eea97.pdf

But it is the case see

The main findings from the analysis and review are:
• Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive • Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment • Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently • Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models • Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms

What part of "co-ops don't outsource" don't you understand?

cooperatives do meet the demands of the market, they do not meet the demand of the neoliberal economics, but franqly those will walk the plank in the revolution

No, it does not happen, scarcity is not just scarcity in supply but also in demand, there is more scarcity in demand in capitalists economies, hence why it has crisis of over production

no such thing, there are certain market sectors and in certain market sectors cooperatives have a stronger pressence, there is absolutely no difference in the form of accounting a co-op and a private business, the only difference is the way profits is distributed, everything else is the same

"However, such endeavours usually require strong unions of organization of workers, and this is often COINTELPRO'd.

Also, as coops per definition, cannot out-source their labour, capitalist firms are able to out-compete them by exploiting desperate people and living off of increasing debt"

Because, as you're said yourself, there's more than one Value to a commodity.

If I ask "What do I use this product for" it makes no sense to answer "$26, or 5 kg of linen".
You'd say. "It's an apple. You can eat it (amongst other things)".
This would replying with the Use-value of a product to a question pertaining to use-value, instead of using exchange value where it doesn't make sense.

Likewise, I cannot reply to "how hard was this to make?" with "Three gallons of gas".
This is where the SNLT comes in. the reply "3-hours-of-labour" is perhaps not a perfect answer, but it is the least nonsensical to the question at hand that we've discovered yet.

Sounds exactly like what capitalists say.

I'd be interested to see how. Why not labour-minutes or labour-seconds?

Sage

they can absolutely outsource part of its production, outsource doesn't neccessarily means "send them to chyna"

capitalists saying that are just make a statement for a market, a market merely a tool for the distribution of commodities, we can have markets without capitalism

Okay. Your point being? Marxian economics is a analysis primarily of capitalism, so that makes a lot of sense.

The measure of time is arbitrary. All that matters is ratios to other quantities of labour-time.
So yeah, it could be both of those if we felt like it.

the funniest about retards like OP is that they claim to know economics yet always forgot their macros

top kek

It's not purely a matter of time, but how productively that time is used. This can be inferred empirically.
In wage labor you are compensated at a fixed flat rate for time spent working, but you aren't thereby encouraged to be (excessively) sluggish because your supervisor evaluates your performance etc.
If your labor under a planned economy becomes less productive, your time in absolute terms is subsequently worth less labor power. It's in some ways a similar and more refined mechanism. If anything you have a greater incentive to work harder because you are in a position to actually be rewarded for producing more than what the bosses deem "justifies" your job, or in a shorter period of time.

math.oregonstate.edu/~show/old/142_Luenberger.pdf

My point is that it sounds like a socialist society that utilises the SNLT/LTV to coordinate society is much the same as a capitalist society in its emphasis on hard work.

again, you are conflicting the terms market and capitalism

Yeah. Exactly. It could certainly be. Depends on how you choose to realocate resources.

But as we have determined, as owners add nothing to the productive process and often do no work (owners are not the same as CEOs) then why do them make most of the money? Why are they wealthy when they don't work hard? Is that not the opposite of what you're saying capitalism supposedly is?

A socialist society should in all things endeavor to work smarter and not harder. Increasing time productivity of labor requires a lot more than workers' brute force and good intentions.
And you have to realize the "hard work" shibboleth is a way to make workers blame themselves for the contradictions of capitalism they're impacted by.

SNLT is used to describe how capitalism functions. The only reason SNLT should be used in the creation of a communist society is in the form of labour vouchers as a way to transition out the use of money.

I'm just glad we're having open discussion, rather than Holla Forumsyps shitposting their retarded memes nonstop

I know about market socialism/mutualism but markets are the cornerstone of capitalism no?

I'm well aware that owners do nothing. I get that they live off the labour of workers.The LTV I somewhat get, since it is where profit comes from, correct? By paying workers less than the value of what they produce. I just have a hard time comprehending the SNLT and how you would remunerate workers.

Well I agree that automation is good but I realise that under capitalism it means unemployment and wage depression.

...

Yes and no.
Marketless capitalism based on exploitation of use-value alone is possible I suppose, but I would look a lot more like chattel slavery.

Well, yeah, in the long run it does, but you can also easily put it into exchange-value terms.
If I make a product worth $10, and I'm paid $4 dollars to do so, then I have been robbed of off $6 for someone else doing something I could be doing myself in coordination with my co-workers.

Yes.
Which is why capitalism inherently is a unsustainable system that forces us to spend our lives at work when we don't really need to.

SNLT is mostly good for comprehending finacial crisis and the like.

no, capitalism's cornerstone is private ownership of the mop, including it's exchange, being able to control the way a market fucntions means they can stop market forces from taking advantage of diseconomies of scale and the ever lowering rate of profit

hence why the greatest of the capitalists is the financier

If Marx said that Exchange value and SNLT are both components of a commodity, then how does he demonstrate that the worker isn't compesated for the SNLT?

Marx didn't say that, he acknowledges the cost of raw materials and the cost of transforming them is part of the process, hence his critique to the gotha programme

Yeah. I'm trying to understand Marxian economics but it's pretty hard going. Doesn't help that I'm no great at mathematics.

So basically communism boils down to

So it's essentially just entitlement? It's always odd how leftists go about talking about materialism is bad, when communism is all about material gains and wealth.

Sure. In both cases by dramatically increasing the time productivity of labor, the same level of production ends up requiring less labor time. The only difference is how the two modes of production respond to this change - in one your labor is worth more because it does more, and in the other it is worth less because it does more.
Capitalism is a deeply contradictory system, in this and many other ways.

You are stupid and don't know the meaning of the words you are trying to use, if you wihs to become less stupid I can provide a link to a book that will help you understand what you belive you understand

Right. So is that linked to the SNLT calculation?

You didn't answer my question. Do you believe you're entitled to shit while the owner isn't?

More like

Also browse more you damn liberal.

But why? Working on the land doesn't mean you own it. It means you agreed to exchange your time to work on another's land to get some sort of monetary gain.

The owner is entitled to the product of his labor. He's not entitled to the product of anyone else's.
No handouts for the idle parasites bruv

prove he is the owner first

then what does?

reactionaries talk the same way about neets

So you just assume the owner is passive in his job? That he sits there and ISN'T able to make money off HIS property?

So if I worked my ass off for 30 years, and started a business, I'm not able to make money off that which I've worked my ass for?

You worked your ass off for the money you earned over those 30 years if you believe that you were fairly compensated for that time then why are you now entitled the value that the workers create.

Because I started the company with the expectation that I'd be able to collect money off it. How cucked is your philosophy that you believe that others are allowed to block you out of your claim?

If that's the case, why actually bother starting a business if I'm not allowed to make money off it?

Let me ask you something. If every single one of your workers stopped working and you werent able to hire more would you make any money off of your business?

There's a big difference in that our position correctly identifies the parasites of society and theirs does not.

No. In small business, owners usually do some actual work themselves. Administrative, organizational, intellectual and physical labor are all still labor. They are certainly entitled to the product of whatever labor they perform. In socialist society workers will still need this type of labor done and have to select the talented and inclined among themselves to do it.
I'm saying specifically that the idle, absentee owner and capitalist have no claim, not that your average small business owner does nothing.

How cucked is YOUR philosophy, fam

Who pays you to clean you're house?

You just shifted your goalpost though. You said OWNER, not idle owner.

Isn't that what you're suggesting though?

...

reading comprehension, user. What he said in was >The owner is entitled to the product of his labor. He's not entitled to the product of anyone else's.

No handouts for the idle parasites bruv

My first post
is the position I reiterated in

You're fumbling with quantifiers, I think, confusing "it is not the case that owning means of production makes someone entitled to all their associated products of labor" with "it is the case that owning means of production makes someone not entitled to all their associated products of labor."

No

READ, NIGGER, READ.

then work it yourself

...

I take it that feels are greater than reals for you?

It is when it is dialectical.

Not implying good or bad. Learn to see things outside of black or white for once, user.

Also, how to think about social relations a little more

In the sense that we should care about people more than things.

The fuck are you on about?

you fucking undialetical faggot, literally google what dialetical materialism is roght now

Materialism - in the senses of material predominating over ideal and the structure of society and course of history being best understood in terms of objective material conditions - is the basis of Marxist thought. This is not to be confused with "materialistic values," which you seem to be referring to here, which nonetheless aren't an interesting point to leftists one way or the other.
The construction of civilization is all about material gains

KEK

"The labourers have the most enormous power in their hands, and, if they once become thoroughly conscious of it and used it, nothing could withstand them; they would only have to stop labour, regard the product of labour as theirs, and enjoy it. This is the sense of the labour disturbances which show themselves here and there."

find a flaw

Why is this such a problem for Holla Forums/tards in general? It's a prominent recurring theme here

you would say that

Yeah, Marx is hard, especially starting out. Even most self-proclaimed "Marxists" don't bother reading it. Which is why we have retarded arguments between the different sects based around their own misunderstandings.

Wrong. A socialist state would use a portion of value produced to develope the means of production and produce collective use values

I've read plenty of his works, just not Capital or much of the economic side.

Seems like my only real choices here are "basically Holla Forums" and bleeding heart. What might you be after, I wonder?

Rec'd Theses on Feuerbach to a coworker. He came up to me later and said something like "damn, dude, that's supposed to be, like, introductory?"

95% of capitalist enterprises don't survive their first 5 years, so it's clearly the coops fault, amirite?

Marx is irrelevant these days, clinging to him is ignoring the continued evolution of thought.

Communism's not a fucking religion and he's not Jesus Christ this is the same centralization and dogmatization that COINTEL uses to make communism a fucking specter that is out of the reach of the average working class.

"Materialism" is a metaphysical position, not a moral code.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

How do you know lmao
Follow your logic to its conclusion lmao

see flag

brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf

The thoughts of my forefathers were coded into my gene, and the evolve further through me, thus I am free to evoke the past thoughts of my ancestors any time I want. What's that? Grandpa Bob, stop molesting that girl, I'm trying to comment on leftypol. No, dad, that doesn't make you gay. Jesus. These unevolved thoughts, man!

logistics, organization, and general administration. every hour the widget assembler spends on negotiations for acquiring the materials necessary to build the widget is an hour not spent making widgets.

All things that can be done by the workers themselves

handled by wage laborers
handled by wage laborers
handled by wage laborers

All of these positions are positions people are employed in already, employers may handle this in the smallest of businesses but for the majority of major capital these are preformed by workers not employers.

How does automation and the use of machinery fit into the LTV and the SNLT?

bumparooni

A core tenet of Marxism is a Dictatorship of the Proletariat where an aristocratic state bureaucracy seizes all the goods and distributes them the way they see fit.

Marxism. Not even once.

If my sad little memory serves, this is one of those private vs public property things with which Marx was DEEPLY CONCERNED.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is a class dictatorship, in that the interests of the class are are exercised at the expense and without consideration for the interests of some other class. The state in real terms under capitalism is essentially a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
It doesn't refer to the the structure of government and in Aristotelian terms is in fact roughly equivalent to direct democracy. Conflating the history of the Soviet Union with some iron law of Marxism makes about much sense as using the history of Pinochet's Chile to make simplistic clams about capitalist Friedmanite economic policy.

Ahh thanks man I'm gonna save this link and use it next time someone says LTV is bullshit

Literally perfect.

An increase in capital concentration will decrease the amount of socially necessary labor needed to produce a good and thus decreases the value. Competition forces all businesses in an industry to adopt new technology in order to not be run out of business, this is also apparent in prices in competitive markets, which will go down when new technology is introduced which makes production more efficient.

Capitalism incentivizes automation because it reduces the SNLT

Sounds like supply and demand, no?

What could go wrong? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha