LTV is garbaggio

Unironic ancap here. I really don't understand why anyone here listens to Marx, considering he balances his critiques on LTV being a correct analysis. Yes, Smith, Say, Ricardo, et. al. all utilized LTV, but their versions were quite different, especially regarding past labor.

The LTV was assembled ex post in order to justify his greater (fallacious) economic claims regarding economic oppression.

LTV is quite simply incorrect.

Value is wholly subjective as can be empirically verified even in the total absence of markets.

What value is a glass of salt water to the man treading water for his life after a shipwreck? None. To the man with a sore throat, however, it is potentially of no small value. Yet there is some labor involved in the acquisition of that glass of saltwater. Someone must fetch it. That's transportation, labor. Ergo, even in a glass of salt water (totally exempting the glass itself), there is some labor. Yet it has no value whatsoever to the man in the first example, and some small value perhaps to the man in the second. Yet based on the LTV, the value of that glass of water is OBJECTIVE, and based principally on the labor that went into its fetching.

Even a simple, common sense analysis utterly invalidates this theory.

If value is objective, then one needs must engage in the same kind of Herculean sophistries as did the pre-Copernicans in their attempts to rationalize and explain why planets seemed to wobble in what _ought_ (according to their theory) to have been perfect circular orbits.

If value is subjective, however, no such Herculean efforts are required, and Occam's Razor is observed.

The glass of cool, clear water is of some small value to the thirsty man busy about his day in town. He might happily pay you a small sum to be refreshed.

The glass of cool, clear water is of near infinite value to the man dying of thirst and dehydration in the desert. He might happily pay you his every last cent to be refreshed. (Mind you, this is a matter of economics, not of ethics or of social mores.) Because without life there is no choice to be made, and no valuation is possible, therefore the man hungry to live and dying of thirst is likely to value his life over his possessions or wealth.

Ergo, value is subjective.

Because value is subjective, central planning is predestined, due to the error of its premise, to never result in the keeping of its promises of equal distribution and plenty for all.

Other urls found in this thread:

marxist.com/marx-marxist-labour-theory-value.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=0tdeeocaBNY
newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/harvey_versus_marx_on_capitalisms_crises_part_1_getting_marx_wrong.
newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/harvey_versus_marx_on_capitalisms_crises_part_2_getting_profitability_wrong
newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/harvey_versus_marx_on_capitalisms_crises_part_3_a_rejoinder
pollmill.com/f/what-is-the-size-of-yuga-yamato-s-nipple-1e9ga78/answers/new.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Oh God, here we go with the idiots who try to lecture others, while not even having read Adam Smith and thus not understand what the differences between use-value, exchange-value and Value are.

...

What's next, mudpie argument?

That's sort of a requirement for being an ancap. Never met one that read more than works of pure ideology.

For a very, very long time the value of a good was considered to be related to its utility, its usefulness. A paradox, however, is revealed when one considers that some things of vital importance (like water) are valued less than things of only superficial importance (like diamonds).
Adam Smith formulated the labor theory of value to explain the paradox. He proposed that the value of a good comes from the labor required to produce it. Diamonds come from distant lands and must be mined or panned out of rivers. For water, well… it falls from the sky!
The explanation solved the paradox of value, but created another paradox: the mud pie bakery. If labor alone created value, then a mud pie bakery would be extremely profitable, but it is not.
To solve this paradox, we come to Marginalism, the current mainstream theory of value. Marginalism posits that the value of a good is related to the marginal utility, marginal availability of substitution, and marginal cost. All of these marginal measures are inherently subjective: the marginal cost of a good is related to opportunity cost of a good, the marginal substitution rate is related to how easily the good is replaced by another, and the marginal utility is related to the subjective satisfaction of the item.
The theory explains why diamonds are valued more than water: they subjectively give a higher satisfaction and water is readily available. It also explains why the mud pie bakery is not profitable: there is no subjective satisfaction granted by a mud pie. Marginalism, furthermore, explains why a football player doesn't buy a baseball glove, and why a housewife doesn't buy a bucket-wheel excavator; subjectively, neither feels they have a use for it.
Marginalism overtook the Labor Theory in the mid 1800s. Some have argued that the theory threw a wrench in Karl Marx's theories when writing Capital since the Labor Theory is a basis for the surplus-value theory that is central to Marxism.
A more modern take on the theory posits that the Labor Theory is merely a consequence of Marginalism. If Marginalism assigns a value to a good, and the value assigned is greater than the value of the goods base materials, then the difference in the value must come from somewhere. Marginalism alone suggests that the reason for the difference in value is subjective, but this ignores that labor is a requirement to transform the raw materials into the higher-valued goods. When the materials are transformed, labor is expended, and value created. This labor, as explained by the Labor Theory, must be the source of the extra value.
The pure fact that employees are paid at all is direct evidence that labor has value and creates value.
The discrepancy between the value that a worker is paid and the value created by their labor is fundamental to the Marxist theory of capitalism: this discrepancy is pocketed by capitalists as profit, and is the source of wealth for the capitalist. It is, therefore, a form of exploitation, and is the Big Problem that socialism aims to remedy.

>Unironic ancap here. I really don't understand why anyone here listens to Marx

Try reading this.
marxist.com/marx-marxist-labour-theory-value.htm

You know marginalism is a retarded theory when all the proof examples are based around diamonds and water in extreme circumstances.

Any statistical examples for any of those claims?

LTV never claims that value is objective, but rather that it is social. The whole subjective/objective dichotomy is a false one conjured up specifically by subjective value theorists.

Secondly you have to realise that when Marx talks of Labour in this context there is a very important concepts: Social Labour

These examples you have given are not examples of social labour. Social labour is labour in interaction with a wider society. You travelling in to the forest and chopping wood all by yourself and then leaving without interacting with anyone or selling anything you've created is not Social Labour, neither is digging ditches in bumfuck nowhere for no reason. It is simply private labour and has essentially no value as far as the LTV is concerned.

Do you see what I mean? Criticizing the labour theory of value because it doesn't make sense when one tries to shoehorn it into a thought experiment, isolated from any wider society of or mode of production, where there is no interaction through the market, no wage labour, no private property and so on is not something to be surprised about, because Value within the LTV is a social phenomenon that simply doesn't make sense when isolated in that way and is contingent on upon wider society. It doesn't make sense within your thought experiment because Value as such doesn't make sense in those conditions.

You haven't discovered a bug, you've discovered a feature.

as usual, ancaps have no actual knowledge of anything

they don't know the difference between different types of value, between different types of taxes and different forms of government

So, did OP just bail on us or will he respond to &

...

What an autistic post, how embarrassing :^)

Also, I love that the way ancaps understand value is that it's just completely subjectively and arbitrarily "made up", how does this in anyway line up with reality? How could anyone other then the most naive brainlet honestly believe this? How about next you try to explain to us the magic behind "supply and demand" using more anecdotal parables about hypothetical situations that all sound like they were made up by a highschooler vying for a bigger word count on their 8-page social studies paper.

...

...

I don't disagree with this but it's horribly argued

How so user?

How do you define value?

Besides, even if Marx's economics are way off it doesn't invalidate his arguments about exploitation, because it doesn't change the fact that capitalists objectively pay workers less than they produce, and themselves don't actually create any wealth. Rather they just parasitize those who do.

It presents points but never argues why those points are supposed to hold true, for example at the hand he shows us the example of Eugene on his island, then stating that this is an idealist scenario which is not sufficient to make broad statements about capitalist society. Why is it not sufficient? Where does it lack in particular?

Some people say being raped in prison is objectively a horrible experience. However, the man cooking who wants to use rape seed oil wants the rape. Really makes you think. Your confusion comes from using the same word for multiple concepts.
And how much work is it for him to obtain salt water?
And surely the amount of work required to have cool water in the desert is the most. Makes me wonder whether you are a false-flagging Marxist douche. You may have intended to write something like the following:
But this isn't quite right, either. If there is good competition for a thing or service, do you think I'm willing to give away some free money on top of what the supplier asks me to pay, even if that thing is very important to me? So, maybe you want to put some additional information into your skeleton of an actual argument about there being monopolies. But then, why do you want to defend monopolies? If competition is strong, prices get close to reflecting production costs. This is the position of economists before and after Marx.

not OP, but learned some things thanks to this thread

Good work econrade.

when the dialectics are j u s t r i g h t

Now get to reading actual books, you might like it.

You wrote all that shit and don't even know who actually came up with the concept.

...

>Marginalism posits that the value of a good is related to the marginal utility, marginal availability of substitution, and marginal cost. All of these marginal measures are inherently subjective
I wouldn't say that. You can relate marginal measures to physical output.

so ancaps gaslighted leftists?

go on

socdem here

Does this mean that the socially necessary labour time in marxism is the same as the supply curve in classical econ?

All supply comes from labour somehow, if you want to measure the supply of a good you must be measuring the labour modified by the amount of plant and machinery at your disposal

All comrades should be econrades

What if I told you there is no supply curve in classical econ?

Right, so you give a safety (net) line to the drowning guy and the salt water to the sore throat guy. You do so without question.

From each according to his ability, too each according to their needs, is the motto of the communists.

Value is as you say, subjective for the consumer. That does not change the fact that salt water is inherently valuable in its sore throat fighting abilities.

It does not reduce the value of an item to say it is not useful in a situation its function is not intended for.

It does not make the gun less useful a tool because it cannot be used to compute maths problems.

Your argument is simply and completely absurd from the very outset.

what you've actually done is inadvertently outlined an argument for inherent use value

Nah, I'm more of a pol sci guy.

so, summarizing

Anarcho-Capitalism….

Anarchist….

Still has hierarchies…

???????????????????

...

anarchism to ancaps just means 'no gubmint'.

watch his video on abstractions. the difference between a real abstraction and a purely mental one is crucial

youtube.com/watch?v=0tdeeocaBNY

it lacks historical and dialetical analysis. the example sees capitalism as the product of the consenting actions of individuals, which clearly isnt the case (if you want to know why, read Das Kapital or just watch the rest of his videos), since these suposedly free actions are permeated by larger structures, institutions and blind economic forces (wage labor, private property, alienation, and so on).

it is subjective, but you're not looking at the reason behind the value that is subjectively given to commodities in exchange.


LTV refers to the exchange value of a commodity, not a use value.


economic planning is entirely related to inputs, regardless of subjectivity or objectivity of the demands. this is a dumb connection.

Except for that that is the basis of Marx's economics. Marginalism is full-on retarded, seeing as it came from the Austrian school. It denies this plainly obvious observation. Austrians will deny reality, navel gaze, and circlejerk about the glories of the free market all day, throwing "muh praxeology!" at you if you try to say anything. It's so dumb.

Neoclassical econ (what's taught in schools) is all bullshit. I've seen back and forth arguments between Post-Keynesians (actually pretty based for succdems) and neoclassicals, coming to the conclusion that no one actually knows how the market determines prices and that, moreover, it doesn't matter. The only thing which can be concretely analyzed is the firm precisely because there are no internal markets, although the market from outside exerts certain forces which make it behave the way it does. Everything can be quantified and measured.

kys

indeed

Also some .pdfs on the validity of the LTV

Read Kliman

Sasuga, Holla Forums

For non-Americans on this board: if you want to know how the American thought process works, all you have to do is critically analyze ancapism.

It's nauseatingly accurate.

Then provide a pdf or link.

Doesn't the kapitalism101 guy address this retarted "argument" in one of his videos? I can't remember which one but if someone knows they should link it.

...

Oh never mind someone already posted, ancap watch these vids to cure your retardation.

Those vids are part of a longer series if you watch the whole thing it explains how production is social, thus talking about exchange in a vacuum without considering how production under capitalist class relations works is meaningless and reductionist.

this explains so, so much about the sorry state of economics today.

I didn't make the connection because austrian economics itself is now considered heterodox.

How does the LTV explain how the exact same amount of labor can produce two different things with very different costs?

Price
Isn't
Value

Then what does price reflect, and what exactly is value?

...

This shit is confusing, reading chapter 1 of Capital at the moment and Marx seems to make a distinction between exchange value, use-value and 'Value'. I don't know what to believe any more.

Theoretically price is derived from the cost of inputs as well as market forces like supply and demand and the relative price of other similar commodities. In reality it's whatever the manufacturer can get away with.

Take mattresses for example. They're dirt cheap to produce, but get marked up hundreds of dollars. Or even clothing, particularly brand name items like Calvin Klein or Eddie Bauer. They might not be any greater in quality than other off shelf items, but because of the label you get to pay a higher price.

As far as value goes, there are multiple different values with their own variables.

Yeah dude, it can be bewildering at first. Just stick with it though. Watching David Harvey's series on YouTube about it might help though.

If value isn't reflected in the real world with prices, then why is it important? If value is assumed to be the same as prices, as most people believe, wouldn't that mean the subjective theory is true in that sense?

Incorrect. Marx however uses the terms "exchange value" and "value" interchangeably. There are thus three categories for Marx: (exchange) value, use value and price.

David Harvey is DOO DOO. Compare his Capital reading with Marx's original and check out the PDF I attached here: ; it lays out in detail, using direct quotations from Capital and annotations, what Marx said and what his supposed interpreters say. He conflates so many things it's insane. For some reason he loves to jumble up Marx in works where he's supposedly making it easier for us to understand him. This is why primary literature is key. If you have any further doubts about Harvey's inaccuracies read this: newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/harvey_versus_marx_on_capitalisms_crises_part_1_getting_marx_wrong.

After that btw:
newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/harvey_versus_marx_on_capitalisms_crises_part_2_getting_profitability_wrong
newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/harvey_versus_marx_on_capitalisms_crises_part_3_a_rejoinder

Harvey is absolutely awful. I simply need to remind everyone of this.

This is your brain on capitalism.

Instead of being smug and unhelpful you could be the opposite.

pollmill.com/f/what-is-the-size-of-yuga-yamato-s-nipple-1e9ga78/answers/new.html

That's why people call Marxism a religion.

Projection. My gripes are in the way individuals claim to make digestable Marx but trail away from him. Right or wrong is irrelevant here; it's the (un)conscious misreadings advertised as introductions that will irk anyone who's read Capital.

Okay, I just started reading yesterday, so please forgive my mistakes.


Is he saying that value only becomes apparent in exchange?

But then he goes on to say:


This seems to me to be saying that value is determinde by labour rather than their exchange. But I thought labour bestowed use-value, not value.

Secondly, he also says:


But then later on:


So on one hand he says that use-value is given by labour, but then that use-value can be given by something which isn't the product of labour?

Do you have anything to say about "Introduction to three volumes of Marx's Capital" by Michael Heinrich? I've seen it passed around on here and I gave it a bit of a read and it seemed quite cogent. Capital itself is hard reading in my opinion (I think Althusser said to skip the first chapter),

Your first question should be answered in the PDF I first posted.

As for this:
No, use value is not given by labor; use value is the socially understood amount and types of uses a given object has, be it a commodity or otherwise. In the quote you posted, you can also see the difference between constant (if (privately) owned) capital, and variable capital; one fixed in place and the other necessarily moved (soil versus a trinket).

I used to think it was great, but then had some problems with it. I think Heinrich makes the mistake of making a distinction between value and exchange-value and conflates exchange-value with price. See this passage on page 42:
Again the problems with this are outlined in the PDF I first posted ITT ( ).

Overall despite these gripes I think Heinrich is still one of the better mainstream Marxists, along with Kliman, Roberts and Shaikh.
It definitely is hard reading and for most I recommend taking it slow and easy, perhaps starting with Paris Manuscripts and WLaC first since they sketch a much shorter yet coherent understanding.

I cannot speak about Althusser's reading of Capital as I am very unfamiliar with him, having only read his essay on ideological structures and a single part of his self-critical work.

If prices weren't manipulated, wouldn't they be an accurate representation of exchange value? If not why not?

You can't have both, precisely because as Marx shows, (exchange) value is socially determined.

Not every useful thing on earth is the product of human labor. So use value can exist in things not touched by human labor, but of course we work creating useful things. In capitalist society, the time necessary to produce a thing is made visible in repeated exchange. The necessary time to produce a thing is not a concept created by exchange or a concept unique to capitalism, and a non-capitalist society will still need some mechanism to figure out how much time it takes to produce something in a reasonable way, it will happen to some degree in advance and to some degree ex post, and the ex post aspect will be smaller than in capitalism.

don't engage neo classicals

But this is true according to Marx. They have use values but no value.


What I don't understand is that if you say that exchange value is the same as value in this mode of production, then how come land (which can be exchanged) has no value according to Marx? You seem to be implying that it has no exchange value either.

This is why I was thinking that value is given by labour.