Holla Forums BTFO

Dont bump this

Don't tell me what to do

Tbh I don't think that LTV is as important as most socialists seem to think it is, nor is definitively proving that wages are always less than the value of the goods produced by workers. To me the specifics of how much value is extracted from workers isn't he important part, it's that labour and labour alone is capable of turning capital (which ultimately comes from nature) into wealth. When you consider this then it doesn't really matter whether or not the wage the worker is paid is more or less valuable than what he produces, what matters is that because the capitalist doesn't produce anything (not even the capital he supposedly contributes to the enterprise), his role is fundamentally parasitic. Capitalist by definition to not create wealth, so any wealth that they accumulate is therefore the product of the labour of others, making their role entirely superfluous and unnecessary.

Imagine if a tenant farmer grew corn, and every year come harvest time, the landlord came and confiscated (perhaps as a form of rent) all the seed necessary to plant the fields for next year. Come spring the landlord then sells the seed back to the farmer, explaining to him that the landlord is a necessary part of this system because without him the farmer would have nowhere to buy his seeds from. The math of the value of the seeds vs the value of what the farmer pays for them is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, all that matters is that the farmer is producing both corn and seeds and is being forced to give part of his produce up to somebody who produces nothing, takes the necessary tools of production away from him, and then parcels them back to him while saying that this is a mutually beneficial relationship.

No. Read Gothakritik.

Why do they think we value the LTV to this extent?

I actually don't care, you can debate this till you're blue in the face, no economic theory of that era is still used today because they were all wrong.

But ultimately, I don't care. If this idea was proven to have zero value, would anyone actually stop being anti-capitalist? I wouldn't.

Because Marx's whole critique rests on the LTV.

I want to fuck Sanae.
That's all

learn to read you pedant

You have no theory (like everyone on the right) so you can't defend your own ideology.

His economic analysis does, the rest not so much.

His economic analysis is the basis for the "rest".

Piss off.

I have. Wealth ultimately comes from nature sure, but it can't be made useful without labour. The wood in a tree is no good to anybody until it is cut into planks. So while wealth comes from nature in its most basic form, labour is the only force capable of turning useless, unrefined materials and capital, into something useful. Labour is the only FORCE capable of creating wealth.

You could have just said, fam.

The LTV only serves to critique capitalism, and explain why the proletariat wouldn't want to work under such a system. It serves no purpose for Socialism though.

BUMP

...

It does though, it provides a basis for lower stage socialism.

Can someone please help me understand what /liberty/ OP's post is trying to say, and if it is valid, and if it isn't, why isn't it?

If I understand correctly, they are saying that the capitalist has no use for the goods that are being produced, therefore the goods are worth nothing to him, so if the theory of use-value were true, it would be possible to convince the capitalist to give the goods away for an extremely low price, or attempt to do so.

Does this not ignore the idea that use value is not subjective value in the sense OP is using it, and secondly that the use value of a commodity is irrelevant, it is only the exchange value which the capitalist concerns himself with?

They say,

Isn't this false? I thought use-value is inherent in commodities as decided in general by society. Does Marx actually say that exchange occurs because the seller doesn't think the commodity is useful?

Finally, what reason does Marx give for why exchange occurs, then?

He says that in Marx's view, the capitalist would need to decide what to produce based on use-value. I.e., he would need to ask everyone in society if they would find the product useful or not, and even that wouldn't guarantee that they would actually buy it. This is compared to theory where every successful exchange supposedly gives you feedback about supply and demand in the simple form of a concrete price.

Use-value is subjective, it simply means whether you has a use for a good or not. (Other than for exchange.)

Exchange occurs because the commodity has use-value for the non-owner but not for the owner. However, there is no profit captured from exchange.

Funny, because /liberty/ got BTFO in their own board about how their retarded ideology isn't ecologically sustainable

8ch.net/liberty/res/61420.html

You act like we are saints. Have you ever seen what the tankies did to the Aral Sea?

nice projecting

Just saying that I haven't seen the best solutions from our side either.

"our side"
Sure, liberty.
Aral sea deserved it btw.

Not necessarily, his historiography and ideas in the psychological and social impact of capitalism can be argued independently of the LTV.