Is Labor the source of all Value?

READ MARX
READ CRITIQUE OF GOTHA PROGRAM

Value is a relation of production for Marx, so yes.

value only exists within a process, all the human actions that move the process create the value

You forgot your ancap flag. He's directly addressing people like yourself in this

So there's no value to berries or clean water, or mushrooms or anything like that? Supply and demand determine market value more than human effort/labor.

This. Even if "nature" is the primary source of value, it can only be realized through human labor

Nice non-argument faggot. How does that Marx quote refute the claim that human labor is largely the source of value in the context of commodity production?

Markets are entirely processes of human labor you faggot.

Yes, because only commodities have value, and only products of human labour can become commodities.

Try actually reading Marx instead of just copy-pasting stuff without understanding any of it.

No. See: mud pies, hawt prostitutes, Yugioh cards, World of Warcraft, Pewdiepie, iphones, every shit product that couldn't even cover its cost of production so it went as fast as it came.

There is nothing about production that necessitates any recognition in market exchange. That you have an >objective price< you must overcome to cover the labor and material spent has nothing to do with the value said products have in the market.

ahahahaha

kill yourself. SNLT dumbass
you mean a commodity that is illegal and thus naturally scarce? value isn't price.
holy shit kill yourself.
you mean commodities that are in a supply higher than demand? still disproves nothing.
and?…

>That you have an >objective price< you must overcome to cover the labor and material spent has nothing to do with the value said products have in the market.
Surely "the value my products have in the market" must be higher than the "objective price I must overcome to cover the labor and material spent", otherwise I'll go bankrupt and put nothing on the market in the first place.
Just as surely, if "the value my products have in the market" is too high compared to the "objective price I must overcome to cover the labor and material spent", my concurrents, who must overcome the same "objective price", will sell the same products at a "value on the market" closer to said "objective price", driving me out of he market unless I do the same.
So in the end the "value on the market" must tend to the "objective price". No?

Nope. The reality is that competition does not drive towards value prices, it drives towards equal rates of profit. Value prices turn up as long run average prices as gravitation point, and I have no idea why this is of importance any more.

Of what book?

You're not AW. Stop appropriating that.

No, but it should. A society that professes to look for the well being of its members has to value their literal life time at least as much as the quality of that time.

The question of organizing labor towards the higher standards of capitalism is best left to when the lowest standards of capitalism have been eradicated. An I'd wager we would have many interesting insights by then.
Lets feed, clothe house and educate everyone, then we can worry about allocating our time in the most optimal of ways and how to encourage it without coercion.

Yes.
Trading ownership of stuff doesnt create anything, making shit does.

It's the source of all surplus value.

You fucking moron it's not like the value on the market determined the reproducibility and reinvestment or anything.

fam we've put commodity form in the dustbin of history

Yes but nobody can make use of that value without labour. Labour is the only force capable of producing value in a practical sense. Nature may have produced the tree but it isn't useful for building a house until it's cut into planks.

This nigga finds mud pies to be an adequate argument
Guess what time it is my man
I'll give you a hint: pic related

How dare you say I'm not A.W.

I've read tons of Hegel and am writing a big BTFO blog on the theory of SNLT as value. You don't know me, brainlet.

If I work all day to make something nobody wants, has my labor generated value?

Value is anthropogenic. Without us, value doesn't exist. It can only be described in relation to someone who values things. That doesn't make value subjective though; value exists in a subjective framework but it's defined by material factors. In that way value is objective but the way we understand it is subjective.

I don't see how tbh. Do people still produce goods to be exchanged in markets? (The answer is yes btw)

So why don't you value everything at its price? It seems everyone forgets WHY it's called value in the first place, the connection it has to desire. Marx is right, value and price ARE NOT the same. There are indeed objective set prices prior to markets, but values have no such prior determination.

That things have an objective ground price as the price of production, and that they have value above or below that price, have no connection.

I think even most capitalcucks would agree with that. Some people pay $10m for a painting I wouldn't pay $5 for.

Market conditions adjust price, but value - the investment of labor into the product - is unaffected.

Desire is the reason why people make the thing (supposedly), but is not reflected in the thing's value. The value is just the amount of work it requires to make the thing that is demanded. How easy something is to make and how much people want it have very little to do with each other. Most of the connection there is because over time a higher rate of production on things people want will result in more frequent innovations and lower the SNLT to produce the thing, invent alternative versions with fundamentally different SNLT, or add important features that add SNLT.

Yeah, but are you getting the two backwards? Price is the amount of money on a thing. Value is the amount of labor it took to make it.

Price is based on supply and demand, i.e. on value and desire. It's a compromise between them determined by the market. You could say the market adjusts the value to get the price. But the value is inherent to the object - it's the investment of labor (living and dead) into the finished good.

I think you've got it backwards here. The value is the "price" of production, except not expressed in terms of the cost of buying labor and capital on the market, it's the cost of all the labor put into the object - the labor of making it, the labor of making the machines that helped make it (proportionaly to the lifetime of those machines), the labor of making the machines that made those machines, etc. That's value. Price is the subjective part imposed by capitalism. It's how most people subjectively understand value, but it's an incomplete picture of the material reality of the product's value.

I didn't ask that. I asked why >you< don't value it at said price? Value is in exchange the substance of equality, determinate as the ratio of exchange. No exchange, no value. Exchanged at a rate? That's the value.
The think there is value beyond what people show to value in exchange is fetishism.
You've got it backwards. Why in the world would you think there was inherent value outside of what people actually value?
No it isn't. Most prices are based on price of production, which is in the real world rarely affected by fluctuations of supply and demand, hence the steadiness of prices. Supply and demand are only meaningful regarding prices of production, and these are not value prices.
As quoted above, prices of production are said by Marx himself to not be value prices due to rates of profit equalizing in competition.
Value prices are the long run average prices of commodities, the gravitational point of fluxes. Once again, why this matters is beyond me. Marx spends too much time wasted on a theory that was wrong from the get go of the theory of value in commodities as such.

I know you're not AW because I argued with him when he actually was here, and fairly often. And you're not pretentious enough.

Of what book?