If the labor theory of value is correct as communists claim...

Why do you like this ape so much?

gorillas are pretty hot tbh

Gorilla posting is best posting

I posted this in another thread, so I'll post it here:

This distinction between useful labor and just labor are what many of those Mises shills aren't getting. Just because only useful labor makes something valuable doesn't mean that labor itself doesn't create valueMaybe one could say value is discovered rather than created., or that prices aren't the same as values. I could also bring up scarcity, which they think is subjective too, can also be part of the labor process, or the fact that capitalists may sometimes find usefulness in newer commodities before mass producing them, let alone that many inventions actually come from the state as well.

How does one deal with this nonsense?

Not to mention commodities that are being made for exchange for capitalists, and use for consumers has now created a lowering of quality, and subsequent decrease of use values. Take these fans for example. One is even overproduced and more easily breakable, yet are probably more expensive to manufacture, and made to attract boojwa consumers based on price and aesthetics.

The wonders of capitalist 'innovation' is itself now a contradiction.

bump

kapitalism101.wordpress.com/

Have people tried to contact Brandon?

What in the fuck are you two talking about

Quite honestly, this always puzzled me (and I'm not a /liberty/fag). As the word is commonly used, isn't value how much something is _useful_ to someone?

what you bring up is extremely important. You see, the LTV is definition based. One can only understand the LTV when you define "value" as how much labor is necessary to make a commodity. If you were to define value with how useful something is, the LTV would not make sense. This is why Marx carefully defines "use value" separately from "value".

I think this is why people trip over the LTV so much. When they hear the word "value" they don't understand that Marx has a specific definition of that word

I was just using an excuse to talk about how capitalism hinders innovation.

Who pays the economists, OP?

People that benefet from their abstract spooky mem revi-zionisms.

Usually the same university that pays the sociology processors, where Marx is required reading from the get go…

Have you ever taken a sociology class? Aside from getting credit as the origin of "conflict theory", there's little to no discussion of Marx and his ideas

I'm seriously asking though because it's not the first time I've heard that things like mass markets are beyond the LTV

How does having a larger consumer target mean that the value of a product is no longer the result of labor?

I took several classes and almost majored in Sociology. Marx comes up a bit but mainly as a historical footnote. Most sociologists are not Marxists or even anticapitalist.

So apeposter, are you actually learning about socialism? You ask a lot of questions, I secretly hope you're convertibg.

Holy shit I love that image

The other two are quieter and can serve a duel function of filtering air. Plus, you can't ignore that some people are willing to spend money for status; people will pay to increase the likelihood of impressing others, such as buying an overly pricey fan or fashionable clothing.

Have you bothered considering why accepting Marxist economics scares universities and their donors far more than accepting Marxist sociology? (and neither sociology class I took in college required Marx anyway, but whatever)

Think about it. It's not a hard question.

Then Mises shills will be like 'based on subjective value judgments, lol, there it's literally all subjective! checkm8 m8." Except there forgetting prestige is a use value itself, or rather an exchange value.

The subjectivity lies more in what is 'impressive' about them in the social world, allowing the capitalist to increase the price arbitrarily, where as the use value is still undercut with it's construction, at least in how long it can be useful.

price+/+value

*price=/=value. I'm very tired.

You've just assumed this and it's entirely false. There's a huge list of Marxian economists and Neo-Marxian and Post-Keynesian economists.

I don't agree with it tho personally, and neither do a lot of those economists

Here's a question: if austrian economics is correct as lots of people think, why does only a small cult of internet ancaps agree with it and no serious economists?

I think it might have to do with reality itself debunking free marketism.

the same reason astrologers believe in their stupid spooky bullshit

because it butters their bread

The Austrian perspective is a purely philosophical one. It is neither quantitative nor materialist and has perhaps the worst predictive capability out of any theory.

This is awful close to "reality disprove(s/d) communism" You need need to be more sophisticated and precise with your critique

Thorstein Veblen, a burger that was a big fan of Marx, was the first person to formally theorize about this, IIRC.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption

This doesn't relate to LTV in any way that proves it, but it does strongly question the idea that value is entirely subjective.

I should, or just shutup, since I'm still a laymen.

The labor theory of value just resolves the value of products and capital goods into their labor costs… but modern economists have worked to help reengineer the economy to more resemble a semi-feudalist rentier economy centred around maximizing rent and interest extraction of course distorting things a bit

because by the mid-19th century political economy had already begun to transform into a mere justification of rentier interests and unearned income

kinda, every system has to promote ideological justifications if its going to reproduce itself. Capitalism needs to justify itself so it has to have economists to explain itself in a favourable light.

I mean it constructively.

Ho boy. No, Marxist economics are not nearly as fringe as you think. It's just that who takes these university positions is influenced strongly by class forces and depends on the individual's ideology. Triply so for policy economists. It's thoroughly similar to the abundance of SJWs in sociology and anthropology.

This too. Material self-justification is a daily reality for proles (paycheck to paycheck, or limited savings) and capital (money never sleeps, invest or it loses value) alike. Ideological justification goes in parallel as people continually try to justify their actions to themselves and others. Cognitive dissonance is a big part of any drop in class-consciousness among the bourgeois.

Because *cough* most "economists" don't study anything to do with >economics< *cough*.

Economics cannot be an empirical science, it is actually a normative ethico-socio-political one bound to philosophy.

Commodity fetishism, comrade.

I didn't know bladeless fans were a thing until just now. Feels prole, man.

literally the extent of my sociology courses on marx was talking about "conflict theory" once in a while

...

Correct me if I'm wrong…

but even if the LTV isn't applicable, nearly everyone will agree that you must sell a product/service for MORE than it cost to make, or to perform (with regard to services). McDonald's hamburgers are bought for more than they cost to make. This is true for all products. That's the point of making products: to sell them at a profit.

But that doesn't have anything to do with LTV, that's en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markup_(business)

i totally agree

Because Marxism is intellectually bankrupted.

Not an argument.

Labor theory of value is like saying the fat girl is just as attractive as the thin one

Aaand the retarded Holla Forumsyps are back.

...

Not an argument.

Actually it's the opposite.
The notion that value judgments are subjective means that a skinny fucker and a chubby chaser are merely making their own decisions about who to put their penis into. LTV would suggest that each has a certain material value based on how much food one consumes or how much exercise they do, among other things. Of course your whole supposition is absurd and betrays the fact that you don't view women as people.

Do you have any understanding of Garl Margs beyond a retarded tinfoil youtube video?
I'm not a Marxist and I think he had some well reasoned arguments.
Not to mention that the Labor Theory of Value originated with Adam Smith, who I'm sure you haven't read because you're a knuckle dragging troglodyte.

I've read quite a lot of Marx and it is basically the bible

mkay, fair enough

...

Labor time as value isn't really a contested point , that's just basic Adam Smith/Ricardo (unless of course you arguing with die hard Mises fan boy).

Most economists have a problem with transformation problem, that is how labor value is transformed into competitive prices, in essence you cannot have surplus labor unless surplus labor time is transformed into Capitalist profit. Most economists will dispute the accumulation of profit by the Capitalists an as a result the hypotheses of tendency of profits to fall. But I don't think that it is reasonable to criticize Marx on the principles of the LTV, Marx separated use value and exchange value anyway, so the move Austrian school economists use is not legitimate. But the problem is how you link values and prices of production. Marxists will say that "the total amount of value in society is equal to the total amount of prices. The total amount profit is equal to the total amount of surplus value" . Others like Okishio will say that innovation in Capitalism is isolated and when new ways of production arise the tendency of profits go up for the Capitalists and the wage of the worker remains constant.

The main criticism I guess is how to reconcile the transformation of direct prices into prices of production.

Here is good article on this topic:

critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com/responses-to-readers-austrian-economics-versus-marxism/value-theory-the-transformation-problem-and-crisis-theory/

I think Brandon did a video on it actually.

youtube.com/watch?v=3eTTm90LAWQ

bump

I asked my econ teacher what she thought about it and she had no idea what it was.
I don't think it's brainwashing per se, it's just ignorance.

That's how the man operates, bro.
Heretical knowledge just goes down the memory hole.

Your physics teacher probably don't give too much shit about all the debate that surrounded ether either.