Explain to me why you still uphold the labor theory of value even though virtually every economist alive has discarded...

N O T A N A R G U M E N T
O
T
A
N
A
R
G
U
M
E
N
T

Seriously, instead of appealing to authority try actually thinking for yourself and tell us why it's so wrong.

...

Because bourgeois economists are
priests and other sales scum with pretenses of science.

I have yet to see an appeal to authority that wasn't a futile assertion of the same for oneself. Liberal praxeology ftl

Virtually every economist alive is a capitalist.

Its not even a real science, and their predictions never work out in real life. Bourgoies economics doesnt even work on paper.

Don't even try it OP. I tried too discussing with these guys. You start asking about their economic theory and they come up with the
"factory model" even though no one works in a factory anymore. They fail to see that companies nowadays sell services, and most of the job of the opressive higher ups is to find clients, or build systems on which the company runs.

...

Good job, you just explained a woefully inefficient system which is nearly fully automated yet requires makework to continue itself.

Read Gramsci

The real value of a commodity is its lowest price on Alibaba.

Prove me wrong. PROTIP you can't

which system did I "explain"? I have no idea what is your point.

Can't you just summarize that and make your point? Then we might be more encouraged to read it.

Judging solely by the fact that it was written by Gramsci and the title, I will predict that it says that bourgeois intellectuals only serve to promote the hegemonic mode of thought within society and cannot function outside of it, rendering them unable to provide an accurate analysis or criticism of capitalist society.

The point is you've just described an incredibly inefficient economy that produces next to nothing compared to the manpower it requires to provide it.

Although he doesn't say it as specifically as some anons here, Gramsci lays out the distinction between two classes of intellectuals: one respective to the contemporary technical apparatus and one that represents historical continuity (philosophers, those seeking truth, etc). The first group guides the masses at large, giving them direction in the existing system.
It is relevant in this discussion as these intellectuals necessarily reject the LTV as it conflicts with their own function.

Been awhile since I reviewed it, but that's the gist I got out of it that I can put here on the spot. My apologies if I was inaccurate.

Because it's scientifically accurate

Dude I didn't explain any system. I have no idea what are you saying is "inefficient", you sure as hell are not giving any reasons for anything being inefficient.

You're right, it's not inefficient at all - it's doing exactly as it intends to

No, you see, he already explained it. All we have to do is employ more people in services and magically more goods appear.

...

Ah I got it now, you are saying that because I criticize your economic theory I'm automatically a capitalist, and even though I didn't mention capitalism at all at any time, I somehow "described capitalism, a very inneficient system!" and so I get to hear these things.

All right… Let me ask you. Why are the people starving? Is it because the evil capitalists don't sell food to them? Is it because the evil capitalists steal from them? You go check the population growth rate of subsaharan africa and explain to me how are they starving.

?????

...

Why don't you tell us why Africans are starving, smart guy

Economics is basically astrology at this point. Read Varoufakis.

This, Varoufakis is steamrolling economicists and they can only squirm.

What an irritating crybaby you are. I refuse to believe you've ever posted here constructively and just like to shitpost and moan.

Factually incorrect, there are more industrial workers employed now then at any point in history. Even the "post-industrial" first world has a considerable industrial workforce.

Also consider the fact that industrial=/= productive labor in the strict sense. Even some of the most obnoxious Third Worldists admit that according to Marxist theory certain actions in the "service" industry like flipping burgers or making the coffee at starbucks counts as productive labor.

You're not a capitalist, but you're definitely defending some pretty bourgeois stuff
lol, their populations are growing because of the lack of food security. They aren't having kids because they're dumb, mind you - it is a completely rational choice given their predicament. More children means more income and labor, and thus a greater chance of acquiring necessary foodstuff.
Capitalists aren't intentionally evil. They're simply following a rationality that doesn't account for human needs.
Read that Gramsci pdf I posted, its only 9 pages

Any recs?

Yes dude, let's feed every single individual who wants to have +10 kids, and that is unable to sustain his entire family, that plan will surely work out well.

I don't know man. I don't believe any explotation from advanced economies is a factor that by itself can explain it.

I didn't shitpost and I didn't moan. I post here because I like to argue, it's a good wat of discussing ideas. It turns out that if you are more aggressive people will debate more. That Gramsci link was interesting.

And btw I still haven't seen how I mentioned capitalism, I certainly didn't "decribe capitalism" as you say. If you think I mentioned capitalism just because I talked about building systems inside a company well, I feel sorry for any economic theory that doesn't address this.

you're silly.

...

You may not have directly, but it is ultimately the assumed, unquestioned base for what you say (even if you are unaware, as Marx writes on ideology, "they do not know it, but they are doing it")
the lower the per capita GNP, the higher the population growth. Besides the reasons I gave in this post there is a lack of family planning. Additionally, women are seen as little more than "means of reproduction" in these places. This changes though when women are given opportunities and voices in society, plus an education, and the fertility rate drops.
What are the other causes for this effect we are discussing?

More like because they can't afford food.
People in subsarahan Africa are starving because farmers prioritize growing inedible cash crops over food. Guess what system encourages them to uphold profit over human need?

per capita would be about the same then. In the developed world per capita is much lower. So I agree with you that you have a point when you look at the global scale, i.e. the factory model makes sense, but I don't believe it makes sense in developed economies for example. It's too far away from the realities of the work of most people.

If you have the time on your hands then I'd recommend "Modern Political Economics", people often consider it his Magnum Opus, similar to Capital in its size and scale. I'm only partway through but the first ten chapters are basically just about how almost all of economics is bullshit.

Just to clarify, what do you mean by "factory model?" I've only heard that term in reference to factory model schools, which we still have in post-industrial societies that focus on service work. People are taught, just as they were to run machines, the basics necessary for them to function in present society as workers.
Also, please respond to the points I raise here and here , I'm interested in what you think

What I meant is the analogy that is usually used to explain marxian economics… You have a factory, the workers work there, they create surplus value that goes to the factory owner, etc.

I don't like the analogy because it feels out of place - it fails to adapt well to a lot of modern workplaces, at least in how I understand it. It puts no value for example in the work of the person that is organizing everything and keeping things running. Or the person who came up with the idea for the business, etc. It makes some sense, I mean you can see the unfairness of it, when the business require a high initial capital to begin (for example, a factory), and I feel it's exactly the reason why the example of using factories to describe the theory never changes.

So they aren't dumb, but they don't mind bringing more kids to a life of misery? I think you are right, in that there is a lack of family planning. To me all this just shows they are not as culturally advanced. Maybe they need more years to catch up with the rest of society, who knows. I'm not entirely sure it's not genetics though.

I assume you mean that per capita GDP is much lower in the developing world?

If this is what you mean Cope explains why per capita GDP is not on the same level as the developed world despite the gains in industrial weight in recent decades hint it starts with an I
monthlyreview.org/2015/07/01/imperialism-and-the-transformation-of-values-into-prices/

Unproductive labor can still be necessary labor even in the context of a service economy. Some types of workers like computer programmers and many intellectual workers in academia although their commodity is only tangible thanks to IP are productive workers of a new type imo.

There are essential service jobs that are still necessary that might not be considered productive labor, like the cashiers or stock boys in a Wal-Mart for instance. It's always been that way even when the proportion of industrial workers in the labor force in rich countries is larger then it is today. The point is the productive labor makes this type of ancillary labor possible and their wages typically don't deviate too far from that of the industrial labor force in their own countries because their labor is also commodified.

Those workers whose incomes do deviate significantly (like stockbrokers, CEOs etc.) are typically those who are closer to or integrated with the ownership of capital. The exploitation of society by finance capital is only possible because productive capital creates ever greater sums of money and commodities available for speculation.

Under capitalism, rewards are often distributed in an inverse proportion to a worker or a capitalists productivity. So even the "post-industrial" (and I assert this is an exaggeration) employment landscape of the First World is dependent on the fact that the Third World has quite a bit of industry and quite a bit of undercompensated industrial workers.

If the Third World disappeared as a producer of super-profits and relatively cheap commodities, then it would take far more industrial labor (which would likely have to be purchased at lower prices) in the rich countries to compensate and keep the system of modern capitalism running.

Management, while being the context in which work is presently (and without a doubt in the past) organized, does not itself produce anything of value. Does it expedite the process? Yes, but in the same right the process may be done democratically or even automated, as it - along with labor - is becoming ever more now.

They are concerned with survival first and foremost, the preservation of life, not its quality. Misery isn't a chief concern of theirs, being the case that it's pretty much normal in the global "south."
How does a lack of local control of productive resources for local needs translate to a cultural problem? The heart of issue doesn't lie within themselves, but their material condition. The resources to alleviate their plight are there, they just aren't available to those who actually need it. Instead, the profit motive directs resources, resulting in the inefficiencies and inadequacies they suffer as a result.
Interesting fact, the U.N. had the wealthy nations of the world give 0.7% of their GNP towards alleviating poverty. However, no country met that goal. Even more important, the aid that was given came mostly in the form of arms, not medicine or food or anything necessary for survival (less even for fostering economic independence).
I have to ask, in what way does the West or global "North" NOT have an effect on the issues?

also
please don't go there, I've had that conversation too many times and it's just depressing that people actually believe that shit

I should have said "percentage", i.e. the percentage of people working in factories is about the same (I think it might be sightly higher), but on developed countries the percentage of people working in factories is significantly lower, than it was in 1950. My point was you guys need to come up with a new example, that is not a factory, to teach people Marxian economics.

Regarding the rest of your post. I don't have time to read what you linked, but I don't believe that the developed world using the developing world for cheaper labor by itself is imperialism, there must be other factors involved (i.e. countries abusing relationships, corruption in governments, etc), which are not problems exclusive to capitalism. Certainly, there might be countries that exploit others, but to explain the lack of growth in developing countries solely due to that I think is disingenuous. There are example of multiple countries that managed to make the transition from developing to developed nation, while competing in the international market.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by productivity, maybe I have a different definition. Because I don't think this is true. I mean you could argue that a top-level manager has no direct productivity, but he manages a lot of people, who by themselves are productive. That takes work… and his influence on the productivity of others is not 0, it is most likely some multiple of what other people are doing.

I should have said "percentage", i.e. the percentage of people working in factories is about the same (I think it might be sightly higher), but on developed countries the percentage of people working in factories is significantly lower, than it was in 1950. My point was you guys need to come up with a new example, that is not a factory, to teach people Marxian economics.

Regarding the rest of your post. I don't have time to read what you linked, but I don't believe that the developed world using the developing world for cheaper labor by itself is imperialism, there must be other factors involved (i.e. countries abusing relationships, corruption in governments, etc), which are not problems exclusive to capitalism. Certainly, there might be countries that exploit others, but to explain the lack of growth in developing countries solely due to that I think is disingenuous. There are example of multiple countries that managed to make the transition from developing to developed nation, while competing in the international market.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by productivity, maybe I have a different definition. Because I don't think this is true. I mean you could argue that a top-level manager has no direct productivity, but he manages a lot of people, who by themselves are productive. That takes work… and his influence on the productivity of others is not 0, it is most likely some multiple of what other people are doing.

I disagree. I think managers exist specifically because a democratic system would be less productive, not more. And automation only goes so far, someone has to manage the machines so to speak.

You separate the people they are from the people who are "doing this to them", but I believe they are the same people, and by that I mean they all share the same culture. Do you believe that if you replace the government of a underdeveloped african nation with a new government, made exclusively out of the people who are suffering, do you believe things would get better? I don't think so - I believe they would fall into the same trap of corruption and plundering, serving their own interests rather than the population at large. That's what I mean by a need to change the culture itself. You are right, the resources are there, but they just don't manage to form groups and cooperate among themselves to exploit the resources in the right way.

Well, we can only speculate. I told you I don't think the west is making it necessarily much harder for porverty-ridden nations to develop, it's the culture that exists in these nations that is incapable of adapting to the markets.

What is your definition of imperialism? It would seem that if transnational corporations are funneling certain resources away from a needy local population towards affluent first-world economies and are employing the labor power of the locals - a resource in itself - towards this extrinsic productive goal then they are meeting the criteria for imperialist activity.
Only in so far as they were able to enter the global economy on their own terms. This is obviously not the case for the majority, as they are given directives by the IMF or WB to "follow the market," and ultimately suffer thereby. This can be shown in some of those Southeast Asian countries that took off, then suffered a declining living standard as they succumbed to liberalization.
However, even if they are productive, are they THAT much more productive that they should be compensated with the wages they receive? Top CEO's make something like 300x what their employees make, are they 300x more productive? The answer is simply no. Besides, we're ignoring the fact that they are only in a position of management anyways as the workers are prevented from controlling and running workplaces themselves FOR themselves.

We have this thread twice a week. Sometimes there's a good samaritan or a massive autist willing to give you a wall of text, sometimes there isn't. Look up "The Law of Value" on youtube and then post your questions here. Maybe someone will be willing to respond tomorrow.
ps: Most of the economists alive discarded it because of video 1.

That's claim I'd like you to back up. In what way does a manager, operating with the drive for profit, have the capacity to effectively gear production towards human needs? It would seem that such an incentive would be held to a far greater degree by the people at large, not a small group of individuals who live luxurious lives at their expense.
I agree, though doesn't this highlight the problem of capitalism? One's labor is becoming so productive that where one works now, dozens had to work before. This trajectory will not change, and so we must face the reality that expecting people to survive from employment is an absurdity.
Yes, and very rightly. If you had a understanding of the present economic situation not only in Africa but throughout the global "South," you'd notice this isn't some sort of localized issue but is in fact a systemic problem, wherein resources are diverted from these populations towards the West. Their governments have practically handed the resources to capitalists, and those who try to stand up to this process are quickly ousted, as you'll soon realize after a quick google search of the "school of the americas." Gaddafi was overthrown because he wanted to create a gold-backed pan-African currency, which was a big no-no to the French as it would put a damper in their own currency/business.
That's nice, but the reality says otherwise

video 1?

OP, I'll simplify this for you: The factory model is presented as a cut-and-dry oversimplifcation of the concept of exploitation. Much like the "island scenarios" and the isolated graphs and S&D models that are common in economics classes. They're not there because they exist as such in reality (even though they might), but because they help remove external factors and focus on the relevant factors to make a point (whether for better or for worse).

Moreover, your post is a bandwagon logical fallacy topped with an argument from authority. That is not to say that they might not have a point, but that claiming that simply because mainstream economists today who have been taught by a chain of other mainstream economists does not mean that their lack of approval of the LTV means that the LTV is useless, null, or void. It merely means that they do not use it, have no interest in it, or as I have seen first hand countless times, they do not understand it and have a very butchered idea of it (such as when they disregard the influence of subjectivity in the LTV, that price =/= value, that labor production by itself does not create value —such as their strawman mud pie or hole digging examples— because if something has no use-value to people then it has no exchange value and thus no value, etc. etc.).

I find the LTV useful not because you can actually get proper calculations for real life out of it, but because it helps explain the issue of exploitation and crisis theory quite excellently. What might be controversial would be more advanced things such as The Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall theory.

Well, I'm pretty sure imperialism would require the use of force, or the threat of use of force. At least it would require for a country to extend it's sovereignty over another, which is not the case here.

You might have a point. I'm not sure though if the international pressure to "follow the market" makes it simply impossible for countries to develop, or if it makes it slightly harder.

About CEO pay: I don't like it either. But to answer to what you said. Yes, maybe it is. If the CEO overlooks 1000 people and his oversight is responsible for a 10% increase in productivity, then he is 100x more productive than a regular employee.

For good reason. If productivity would increase in that scenario, then they would put the workers in charge. If a workers controlled company would work better, and be more productive, then it should arise naturally in a capitalist scenario.

In what way does a manager, operating with the drive for profit, have the capacity to effectively gear production towards human needs? It would seem that such an incentive would be held to a far greater degree by the people at large, not a small group of individuals who live luxurious lives at their expense.
Why would the people at large not have exactly the same motivations as their manager?

I agree, though doesn't this highlight the problem of capitalism? One's labor is becoming so productive that where one works now, dozens had to work before. This trajectory will not change, and so we must face the reality that expecting people to survive from employment is an absurdity.
Well yes, ultimately we might have to change things. But right now I'm not sure if that's the case - notice that the percentage of people employed in factories has remained basically the same for the past 50 years.

Is there even any other theory of value that's not just "lol it's like subjective XDDD"?

bump

What about the Marxian economist? Theories in science are not based on consensus, and the popularity of Marx today is telling. Instead of appealing to the vulgar economist, why don't you explain what you don't like about it?

Commercial capital is unproductive, but making drinks and burger flipping isn't. When Marxist say that, they are referring to Western nations, especially the United States. Yes, we are aware that all the commercial and service industries need products to sell so the industrial sector must have increased proportionally, or disproportionally to the commercial workers.

I don't

bumpity

Communism isn't a big "Nany state".

How is it actually wrong?