Convince me the labor theory of value is true

Convince me the labor theory of value is true.

I'm not some ancap who are usually against this theory for some reason, I agree with everything Marx said except this but try and convince me why it's true.

Attached: grug.jpg (235x215, 8.33K)

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

Why would you pay for something that required no work to produce?

You mean a literal plot of land?
Or a cow?
Or just a rock someone picked up and then said "hey man I'm selling this cool rock for $3, want it."

Yes and no. I'm talking more about commodities. If a commodity is produced, but no labor went into it, why pay money for it?

why do you disagree with it? And how could you agree "with everything" except this when it's such a central thesis in his entire thinking?

What parts of the LTV do you believe to be faulty?

Define commodity and define it in a way in which no labor is used to make it.

It really isn't. Marx's writings were part calling out capitalism in slightly contradictory but understandable manners and what he believed communism to be.

I mean all of it basically, the labor put into something doesn't make it objectively more valuable or better nor do the supplies in making it, there are better ways of calculating value in a socialist society, hell the theory itself was spawned from capitalism and Marx just used it against it's original creators, but it's still a retarded theory because of that.

There is strong econometric evidence in support of labour theory value. Labour input strongly correlates (>95%) with average market prices. Profitability also correlates with the share of labour to capital in a particular industry.
You can hardly try to view a single commodity in isolation and approach it through labour theory of value, moreover doing this (analysing a commodity in isolation) tells you nothing. Labour theory of value reveals the principles underlying the economy as a whole since that is how it operates in reality.

what's the labour input of shitcoin?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1138x490, 54.63K)

Analyzing the over all economy and comparing and contrasting isn't what labor theory of value is. My point being that over all tlv is a bad way of calculating value.

Doesn't it waste electricity to "make value?"

I believe he is saying that if a commodity was produced that took no labor, you wouldn't buy it because it takes no labor. It could be made constantly just with the Capital costs, and thusly would only even be able to be sold at those costs (competition). No value is created, labor theory of value wins.

I don't think you know what the Labor Theory of value is. It sounds like you are looking at value as use, how effective a product is, etc… When the Labor theory of value is referring to exchange value and how this comes from labor.

Highly unlikely.

Water has no value?
Wait I thought Marx supported the LTV to properly define exchange value.

Can I get an essay explaining how the LTV was literally the crux of every single thing Marx said.

Uh, are you sure you're familiar with the LTV? Marx doesn't mean "value" in the usual dictionary sense of having social worth (that would be "use value"), he defines it as the quantity of abstract labor contained in a community produced under the capitalist mode of production.

Read part one of Capital, it's not that long.

Meant "commodity", not community. wtf

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

Electricity, ISP, your laptop itself, the general infrastructure needed (it would be hard to "mine" your shitcoins if nobody took care of the sewers, for instance, and your area were to be flooded by shitwater). But, you know… what's the labour input of backyard cockfighting? Do the bets on the cocks actually reflect the value that is put in organizing the event and raising the cocks?

Marx's LTV is a theory of value which like any scientific theory makes predictions/hypotheses. The LTV argues that the exchange value of commodities is determined by socially neccessary labour time. It is vindicated in this by econometric data. I'm not sure what you mean about 'measuring value'. Value isn't 'measured'. Commodities are valorised in the market and the LTV explains the underlying mechanics (SNLT) by which this occurs within the economy. You seem to be confused about what LTV is.

shitcoin isn't really a commodity, depending on how you look at it, its a currency or more realistically a speculative asset. Although it would be interesting to see some long-term econometric data showing the relation between bitcoin value and the labour input of it its generation.

Wait let me retract the water statement, I just realized how much of a contradictory argument that was.

Aren't (crypto-)currencies commodities, though? Money is the universal commodity.

Attached: 45.jpg (550x500, 45.53K)

If it was consumed with no labor? Yes! The "water" you buy is purified through human labor, bottled/piped/stored by human labor, and transported by human labor. If we were surrounded by drinking water all the time and it was produced by nature, water would have no exhange value. You can actually see this right now with the valuation of air for breathing.
I don't know what you are saying here. I just understand how the LTV works, I couldn't tell you why Marx personally like it other than its explanatory value. Can you be more specific?

Poker chips are currency for currency, what are you getting at?

So you agree that labor produces value then? If not, make a new argument since you and one that one.

I abandoned the last argument because I realized I was just as anti supply as I was anti labor.

I'm guessing you're thinking LTV is a theory how value should be calculated. The LTV explains how value is "calculated". Marx strives to do away with value entirely.

So… do you want to make a new one? I feel like a kid asking his girlfriend for her virginity jesus.

Probably not, I've abandoned that argument and gone on to others since I expect this thread to be over in about 5 minutes.

This was the one explanation I needed.