Labor Theory of Value BTFO

...

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch03.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

sasuga

I didn't though…

Volume 3 isn't meant to be read though, it was made as a joke to spook anarchists

Marx says the value* of a commodity is determined by the SNLT. That's not the same thing as exchange value or price.

But the person you quoted, did, you baka

OP define value for me.

OP what does the third sentence on LTVs Wikipedia entry say?

...

This is fucking stupid. If they were trying to make a point they would give me the specific quotes. Especially the amount of misreading people do in regards to Marx. Because right now I'm unsure if this guy misunderstands surplus value or not.

As far as contradictions go I'm pretty sure the biggest inconsistency is between "Capital" vol 1 and "Wage Labour and Capital". We had a thread where some anons mentioned that Marx says that price fluctuates around cost of production in the latter which would be inconsistent with c+v+s = Value given in the former. Of course then it's just pretty obvious that "Capital" vol 1 is Marx' own final verdict on the matter.

How does Kapital and WLC contradict>

wow… really makes me think… its almost like….. maybe…. he's talking on multiple different levels of abstraction…..

In capital volume 3 it says price fluctuates around prices of production aka Cost-price + Average rate of profit. I think capital volume 1 is making the assumtion that price = value to explain some stuff.

Vol 1 assumes no changes in supply and demand, vol 3 does.

Whatever man this shit's boring who cares. LTV is irrelevent anyways.

It was a while since I read WLC but some other anons in another thread said that it argues that cost of production = Value. I take this to mean c+v = Value instead of c+v+s=Value in capital.

If this is what it says then the guy in the OP didn't understand it. That is clearly consistent with c+v+s=Value. Also yes, vol. 1 almost exclusively assumes that commodities are sold at their value, and deals very little with supply and demand fluctuations.

Either you're a falseflagger trying to make anarchists look bad or some post-left retard.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch03.htm

Neither. Lot's of left-anarchists don't place the huge emphasis on LTV like Marxists do. Not all ancoms are just Marxists except no gubmint. Breadman didn't place importance on LTV for instance.

What's your point?

Cost of production ≠ Value

Tbh the validity of Marx's LTV isn't a big deal for leftism, all that matters is that labour is the only force capable of creating wealth, making any appropriation without contribution of labour tantamount to parasitism.

Contents [hide]
1 Definitions of value and labor
1.1 Distinctions of economically pertinent labor

I don't understand how you think this is a contradiction?
I will try to simply explain it for you.

Value = SNLT "Socially necessary labor time"

Assume a product is sold at a price equal to its value:
This value can be decomposed;
1. The value of the means of production (all commodity inputs into the process of production)
2. The value added by labor in the process of production

This sums to the entire socially necessary labor time of the product. This second term, the value added, can be further decomposed into distributional terms. How does it look distributionally?

The cost of production can be decomposed as such:
1. The value of the means of production
2. The value of the wages paid to the worker (Portion of value added, the second term above)
3. The surplus value (Portion of value added, the second term above)

Surplus exists because the value of the wages paid to the worker is less than the value created by the labor-power which it buys.

"How then is labor power purchased for below it's value, when value is an equilibrium price? The general rate of profit should be impossible because the price of labor-power should always return to no more than its value "

Labor-Power is purchased for below its value on average.

The value of labor-power is not a proportion to its use value (as the creator of new values). Rather the value of labor-power - like all values - is the product of its own socially necessary labor time - the cost of production of the labor-power itself, or more simply the value of its means of subsistence. The use-values by which are these means of subsistence are ever increasing in utility and variety, but the value embodied in these means of subsistence does not change on average. Although changes in the rate of surplus can be achieved at least temporarily through the class struggle.

If you are still having trouble understanding please read the pamphlet "Wage Labor and Capital" by Karl Marx, and do not skip the introduction by Friedrich Engels

I don't understand how you think this is a contradiction?
I will try to simply explain it for you.
Value = SNLT "Socially necessary labor time"
Assume a product is sold at a price equal to its value:
This value can be decomposed;
1. The value of the means of production (all commodity inputs into the process of production)
2. The value added by labor in the process of production
This sums to the entire socially necessary labor time of the product. This second term, the value added, can be further decomposed into distributional terms. How does it look distributionally?
The cost of production can be decomposed as such:
1. The value of the means of production
2. The value of the wages paid to the worker (Portion of value added, the second term above)
3. The surplus value (Portion of value added, the second term above)
Surplus exists because the value of the wages paid to the worker is less than the value created by the labor-power which it buys.
"How then is labor power purchased for below it's value, when value is an equilibrium price? The general rate of profit should be impossible because the price of labor-power should always return to no more than its value "

Labor-Power is *not* purchased for below its value on average.

The value of labor-power is not a proportion to its use value (as the creator of new values). Rather the value of labor-power - like all values - is the product of its own socially necessary labor time - the cost of production of the labor-power itself, or more simply the value of its means of subsistence. The use-values by which are these means of subsistence are ever increasing in utility and variety, but the value embodied in these means of subsistence does not change on average. Although changes in the rate of surplus can be achieved at least temporarily through the class struggle.
If you are still having trouble understanding please read the pamphlet "Wage Labor and Capital" by Karl Marx, and do not skip the introduction by Friedrich Engels

ignore


read


i mis-worded my comment the first time

that book was written before capitalism was even a dominant mode of production in Europe. IT was like an early guess when capitalism was barely a thing.

Why are we still even talking about it?

what the frick