So, I started to read the capital

If you want an exchange value based on te number of hour worked, you will need an omnipotent authority.

That is pre isely what labour-power is, you autist

The employeers pays you not to sit around all day, but to rerpoduce a labouring activity of average prodictivity

When the capitalist hires you, he pays you TO REPLICATE an activity, and since I inly care about the reprodiction of this activity, and that the reproductions are all of similar characteristics, then it doesnt matter if you consider yourself a special snowflake or not, i simply care about your labouring power

No, you don't. If you want exchange in a market, do you need an omnipotent authority to get prices?

The labour theory of value describes a capitalist market economy. It DESCRIBES it.

The point is to work to abolish the market economy and use alternative forms of production/economy.

Exchange-value is already based on the numbers of hour socially necessary (i.e. by an average worker with the average tools), you don't need to enforce it.

Except that we want to abolish the value-form, not to have an economy around it

If Pajeet can do it in 5 hours ans I can do it in one, but he is paid 10 time less, Pajeet get the job.

This is not what we have.

Then why is labour being outsourced to India?

Yeah, good luck with that.

How it it even supposed to work?

I gathered a full bucket of mushrooms but I am tired of srooms and ant to eat a rabbit. It happen that you snared a rabit, but you have enough food and want to improve your hut. The guy who know how to make good huts just want clothes.

Without a ligua franqua of the merchandise work, a number representative of how hard it was to get that thing, trade is going to be a pain in the ass.

???
Yes it is. The only reason you cant take the same wages as pajeet is because your expenses are higher. Just because a capitalist doesnt hire you, doesnt mean the law of value isnt active. It just means the capitalist is extracting more surplus value.

Also covered in das kapital. Keep reading.

I am pretty sure he does not advocate for free market and prices being determined by offer and demand.

Capital describes how capitalism works, it's not advocating anything.

We let you and your friend play hunter gatherer while we work in factories farming rabbits by the millions.

You don't understand, you dense guy. Marx DESCRIBES capitalism with the labour theory of value. He then uses it to extrapolate the system of capitalism further, going into surplus value and dropping rates of profit.

Marx then concludes with saying.

Marx DOES NOT WANT WHAT HE DESCRIBES, HE DESCRIBES CAPITALISM AND WANTS IT TO GO AWAY.

with anarchy, without a centralized currency, you cant have prices, only exchange values

Barter can be used in a global, digitalized market, if I want something, I can upload this as a need, and if someone can provide it, then I can provide what he would need, societal prodiction is now achieved

Because in the current world, price is what make th job go to a place or another, not the number of hours worked.

My expenses are higher because I don't have the same standard of living than Pajeet. Even if the job is an single person artisan job and there is no capitalist around, Pajeet is still cheaper because he live in a slum and I live in a house with have been built according to one million norms.

Funny cos its a big fucking book as well. You think that isn't work?

On the long run, prices tend to reflex the time laboured

This is a logical conclusion, if I need to labour to get ANY commodity, as no commodity prodiction is fully automated

Fine.

I exchange my merch against said weight of gold and then exchange it again for another merch.

Oups, money is back, welcome in the early middle age.

Also

Seems like you have run into a capitalist contradiction, why dont you google the reserve army of labour?

Gold is not universally accepted in the same way as money is

I dont give a shit about gold, therefore you cant use it to trade with me

See the difference? Gold is not a general equvalency, and we wouldnt determine prices in gold

Since his kids died of poverty, I want to say yes.
Just because he did one thing does not mean he know how to fulfil other's people needs.

Exactly. And these living expenses mean that your wage cant go down any further than they are. But hey, your argument kind of falls apart a bit here. Because pajeet in the slum now has 1/10th the income you would have had, and you have nothing, and rely on welfare. It all fits perfectly within marx' model of capitalism.

You are right about this, blackflag here is retarded. Money is just an universalized commodity, and it will arise naturally out of trade.

Money will arise even if it isn't supported by a state. Just look at bitcoins. Money is the direct result of trade and barter.

Money may crash one day or another, sometime an old money die an a new one is created, sometime it loose the trust people place in it, but gold will only crash when space exploration will give us unreasonable amount of gold and it will no longer be a practical good to trade.

Kids died of starvation all the time back then. Even people who had jobs had their kids die of starvation.

Do you have any clue what the conditions were like in industrial revolution europe?

My wage can go down, but then I will get another job.

Except neither gold or money is universally accepted

Go ahead, try to pay with mexican pesos in japan, let us know how it goes

I dont accept bitcoins, woops now you are fucked

Insofar as people use gold as the commodity to represent value, account exchange and determine prices

For all you 3 autists, I am forced BY LAW to use whatever currency the state uses, I cannot form my own, this is another characteristic of money, it is CENTRALIZED

It was not common to die of starvation before the industrial revolution unless there was a war of it was a bad year, so I don't see how increasing the general productivity can make people poorer.

Yeah, because the aristocracy wasn't even worse.

Some guys asked to be paid in bitcoins. The law only force the employer to use the local currency in his accounts. If he want to translate the money he give to you in Zimbabwean dollar, the state don't give a fuck.

Yes. Exactly. Your wages go down until your labour in addition to the labour cost of transport and the resources used to do so are rougly equal to those of pajeet.

You figured it out. Congratulations.

I said DURING the industrial revolution. The working class was poor as fucking dirt, and kids died all the time because there was no work and thus no food.

Well if you google the word "slum" you can see many of those people live in more poverty than their farming ancestors or hunter gatherer ancestors did, yet the avarage productivity went up.

Want to find out how? READ DAS KAPITAL.

What you need to understand is that when you are talking about exchange-value you are not talking about particular commodities. When you want to exchange 100 kgs of apples for 1 ton of coal you are not going to look at the quality of every single one, you cannot do it. For this reason, in exchange-value commodities appear as abstract, they loose their particular properties and get "average," and so does the work necessary to produce them. That's why all kinds of works, instead of the concrete labour like mining coal or picking apples, appear simply as time expended and become exchangeable.

What? The state doesnt allow you to print your own money and if you do, I can counterfeit it, enjoy your inflation

See how money needs a CENTRALIZED entity that protects it??

You aren't the only person delivering your goods, the arise of money pushes those who refuse to accept it out of the market. Also, if you can't get food for your children you will begin to think twice about not accepting money. Using gold or silver as a universal exchange goods arose long before any state enforced it. Money in its current form may die out, but 99% of people will eventually only accept one type of commodity which is universally agreed upon to have value.

Anyway you can keep moving your goalpost and try to "win" your silly argument, but Im going to do some more important shit.

10/10 post

The value-form is exchange-value in action, you fucking retard.

Money without inherent value needs one, gold coins were used as an universal tool of exchange long before any states enforced the use of it.

Why would you not get food for your children, when the farmer cooperative is there for you to labour in?

We cannot make free use of lamd to organize food prodiction to achive artificial post-scarcity because of property laws and taxes

Then they just go plant some crops with the magical tractors and magical mills their ancestors didn't had and live a better live than their ancestors.
What is the thing keeping them into the sum? Some of their ancestors tarted farming without even a tool.

Only insofar as people trusted it, if I dont, then I wont exchange with you

Only if its produced for some form of market exchange in which its value is determined by supply and demand, marginalist curves and so on and NOT social prpdiction, as production on demand

Oh, you mean the magical tractors they dont own, to grow magical grain on magical land they dont own, to put it in magical mills they dont own? (the latter did exist to their ancestors, by the way)

Gee I dunno, perhaps its people with guns who will shoot you if you try to plant shit on land that isnt yours? Used to be a lot less of those around, you only had to burn down a couple of trees and maybe kill some hogs, not fight a millions+ army and police force.

Tons of farmers get some plot of lands to start an agriculture business. What stop you from doing the same?

Gee, time to move to the United State, where they will give you a nice plot of land if you build your house over it.

That I dont want to have a farm but to abolish capitalism???

...

See your farming community as a black box. The rest of the world only care about what goes in and out, not how things are done.

You mean in alaska, the provice that has permafrost? Yeah im sure farming is a good option over there.
And get killed by the cartels for not paying them or arrested by the government for not buying land from the state/burning down forrest.

Also, how is pajeet going to purchase a ticket to the USA, get citizenship and get a homestead?

How am I going to get citizenship and homestead? I cant afford a ticket, months of naturalisation shit and stuff.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts

How utopian

Ah but thats wrong you fucking faggot. See: Every country and society in the history of humankind ever.

Dont need no stinky act to make possession of something

Basically cops need to fuck off

...

Alaska is nice. Sure, tomatoes and oranges won't like it but plant local crops and use greenhouses.

You have all the water you an ask for and it's the only thing important.

Like moss and pine trees. Nice
Ah yes let me just pull out my slum-checkbook and buy a million dollar greenhouse.

With that kind of mentality, it wont work indeed.

You have to make a choice: either you want to punch cops in the face, either you want to tent to your crops.

We were talking about the industrial revolution.

Now, if you still want to do it, Russia created an equivalent law.

...

Leeks and cabbages will probably like Alaska, I don't know about potatoes. Do your own research.

There is 5 hectares of this around me right now and 10% of Spain is covered by it. It will solve your problem.

At worse, just raise cattle.

Some Canadians make a thing called ice wine with grapes frozen in early autumn and it's the best wine I never drank.

There is plenty of things to do, even in Alaska, but Dakota is probably the place you are looking for if you just want to practice agriculture.

If potheads and drug dealers can do it (I know I used to be one) You can too comrade.

Socially necessary average labor time
Work that produces a desirable product and is disciplined by competition with other laborers

Homesteading acts do allow for the creation of coop farms

I know there are some in spain, should be replicated

No one force you to sell your crops on the market.

You can burn it all or eat it yourself if you want. You can give it for free. If you find someone willing to pay millions for it, you can sell it for millions.

Yes, im sure plastic greenhouses like you have in spain will work in -40 fucking alaska.

The further you go down in europe the more retarded they become.

I can also blast your brains out. Everything is possible.

I know, what I am saying is that even if we start with markets, its still better than private farms

No, that, unlike sharing things with your friends is illegal, plus someone will get a thing taken from him and will possibly ruin your life to save himself. Even if he don't, some guys will lock you in a gage for what you did.

Yes, I am sure if Spain use it to simulate summer in winter, it is impossible to simulate a temperate summer in the Alaskan summer.

You mean like software? Or those times we started communes and the army evicts us because we are accused of being drug dealers or terrorists?

Communes would be better without drugs anyway. You can't expect it to go right when it run on psychedelics.

When people go in with money and spend it on drugs, yeah, you can expect the authorities to close the "farm".

...

haha
you're so polite

semi-related question:

Suppose that under a socialist government, you have a collection of workers specialized in making a particular item, who are renumerated in non-exchangeable vouchers for their efforts according to socially necessary labor time. If this collection of workers is the only one that produces a given item, they control the socially necessary labor time. Wouldn't the incentive here be to produce items slowly so as to receive more vouchers for less intensive labor? This is similar to a monopoly under capitalism, where workers effectively set the price through control of the SNLT, but no firms or competition mechanisms exist in socialism by design. What do you do in this situation? Government intervention, N year plans, or what?

Another related question.

If the only way to transform a thing into another is human labour, then the price it will have under capitalism is proportional to the hardship endured to produce the good. Then why the exchange price is not a good measure of the labour hidden in the goods?

Yes.
Punishment. Which is more than we do now about monopolies.

So why would your boss pay you when training Pajeet costs a quarter as much?

Hes trying to argue that because marx says labour time drives prices, that must mean any labour must be paid the same in capitalism.

Which is wrong of course, due to differences in living costs, education, transport, which marx also covered.

I know that, but it doesn't answer my question.

Because his company want to sell in my national market and there is still some protectionism hidden when the IMF don't look.

So he should pay you more… so he can sell to you?
But why? You'll just buy it anyway. And if you don't, some other poor sucker will.
Say hello to your new head of Internal Affairs, Pajeet Aggarwall.

So should workers who fail to decrease SNLT over time also be punished? Assuming that the SNLT is determined by some central authority and never allowed to decrease, this encourages workers to not seek to improve productivity, because doing so would mean intensification of labor. The central government don't really have a way of knowing when an industry is intentionally underperforming (unless you are going off a five-year plan or something like that) since there's no notion of competition, firm entry, and the like, and workers might be encouraged to try to work in low-intensity industries to collect more vouchers for less effort. But there's no reason for another group of workers to try to outdo this lazy group, because both groups would be harmed.

I just think the labor voucher system is perverse.

Because politicians can always ruin his trade if they want. There is a reason there is still cars manufactured in Europe.

You really think Trump is the only one doing some level of protectionism?

No. Dont intentionally twist the scenario. You said that the workers deliberately sabotage and leech off the rest of society.

No, what made you think I implied that?

I'm sorry but you haven't read Das Kapital.

All they have to do for it to be perverse is not attempt to produce goods more quickly through increasing efficiency in the production process. What's the difference between that and deliberate leeching? Either way, they get more vouchers than they "should" have.

Not much. But I dont see how this is an argument against a voucher system. In capitalism the same thing happens but it is not addressed at all. Monopolies and cartels exist all the time and keep existing.

Under socialism it can be addressed.

In an idealized capitalist economy, if a firm is producing a good inefficiently, a new firm can supplant them and deliver the good for a lower price by increasing efficiency in production. In practice there are obstructions to this, like institutional capture by corporations to protect monopolies, cartels, and the like. But, pretend we're in idealized capitalism.

Suppose that we have a collective of workers who produce a given good under a voucher system, who choose not to produce the good as efficiently as possible out of laziness and/or trying to get as many vouchers as possible for the least amount of effort.

You can't easily have the equivalent of a new firm entering the market to produce the good more efficiently. Capital doesn't exist, so you can't exactly go and try to raise money to invest in more means of production or try to put in an order with another group of workers - or you would need to save up for a fuck ton of vouchers. Or, you would need to somehow kick the other workers out of the factory. Since every worker knows how the system works, they'd be incentivized to get you to not work harder so as to bring their voucher returns down, right?

Basically, I think it's a structural problem of the voucher system, as opposed to regulators in a capitalist economy choosing not to create or enforce laws because they can be paid off. I don't know what socialism would entail if not a voucher system, but I don't think the voucher system is good.

S O C I A L
A
B
O
U
R

Explain to me why not. Create a new collective. If that new collective starts producing more efficiently they will get paid more because the avarage time for the product is higher than their actual work, and the lazy cunts get paid less because the avarage time for a product goes down.

Oh, which in turn then encourages those lazy cunts to adopt the same techniques as the others.