So how can machines produce no value? If Marx said...

Trying to understand this shit hurts my brain.

Marxists make an effort to be indecipherable, because sophistry doesn't work (not nearly as well, at least) if you communicate clearly.

There are people out there who still actually believe in the labor theory of value. Oh my fucking god. This shit was debunked a century ago, you people are fucking retarded.

lemme guess, muh mudpies?

It's science m8. And the difficulty lies in the object itself, not in its scientific presentation.

Marx's work is the product of both a critical working through of classical political economy (the field in which bourgeois society came closest to understanding itself) and the actual concrete existence of capitalism as an immediate mode of social existence. The task is to unearth the 'essence' of capital (the form labor takes as value) without regarding the existing expressions of capital as superfluous. Existence is essence and essence has reality only in existence.

Capital is wild really. Marx didn't realize how profound it is.

My understanding of Capitak comes from a year long reading through of the three volumes and contemporary materials reconstructing and interpreting them. It just requires dedication.

explain yourself.

so if I want to understand capitalism from marx's perspective I would want to skip volume one as a whole?

They have no socially necessary labor time with which to imbue the product of their labor.

Neoliberals keep saying that but all the rebuttals to it I've seen misconstrue it.

No snark, what do you believe debunks it?

Ask yourself this. If you had commodities entirely produced by machines, would you need to pay them anything in return? Not just maintenance, pay them. You wouldn't. Therefore the machines' work does not have any value because value is a social product.

No, it means you have to read all three volumes and even then recognize that Marx's project is incomplete and at times contradictory because of its residual adherence to Classical Political Economy. You can only really understand Volume 1 after you've finished Volume 3.

The paradoxes of machinery offend r'kka! May all technologists be plagued with irregular bowels and loose stools!

Can anyone here give me an objective list of the value of labor?

How do you give an objective list of a social relationship

What is the objective value of the creation of a shoe?

...

A shoe.
:^)

...

I'm sorry but that question is utter nonsense.

The creation of the shoe itself has no value. It's the labor done by a human that has value.

What is the value? Does the life long labor of creating a Pterodactyl shit statue have value? What is the shit statues objective value?

read marx

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm

u'r whalecum

Machinery produces relative surplus-value; not only by directly depreciating the value of labour-power, and by indirectly cheapening the same through cheapening the commodities that enter into its reproduction, but also, when it is first introduced sporadically into an industry, by converting the labour employed by the owner of that machinery, into labour of a higher degree and greater efficacy, by raising the social value of the article produced above its individual value, and thus enabling the capitalist to replace the value of a day’s labour-power by a smaller portion of the value of a day’s product. During this transition period, when the use of machinery is a sort of monopoly, the profits are therefore exceptional, and the capitalist endeavours to exploit thoroughly “the sunny time of this his first love,” by prolonging the working-day as much as possible. The magnitude of the profit whets his appetite for more profit.

As the use of machinery becomes more general in a particular industry, the social value of the product sinks down to its individual value, and the law that surplus-value does not arise from the labour-power that has been replaced by the machinery, but from the labour-power actually employed in working with the machinery, asserts itself. Surplus-value arises from variable capital alone, and we saw that the amount of surplus-value depends on two factors, viz., the rate of surplus-value and the number of the workmen simultaneously employed. Given the length of the working-day, the rate of surplus-value is determined by the relative duration of the necessary labour and of the surplus-labour in a day. The number of the labourers simultaneously employed depends, on its side, on the ratio of the variable to the constant capital. Now, however much the use of machinery may increase the surplus-labour at the expense of the necessary labour by heightening the productiveness of labour, it is clear that it attains this result, only by diminishing the number of workmen employed by a given amount of capital. It converts what was formerly variable capital, invested in labour-power, into machinery which, being constant capital, does not produce surplus-value. It is impossible, for instance, to squeeze as much surplus-value out of 2 as out of 24 labourers. If each of these 24 men gives only one hour of surplus-labour in 12, the 24 men give together 24 hours of surplus-labour, while 24 hours is the total labour of the two men. Hence, the application of machinery to the production of surplus-value implies a contradiction which is immanent in it, since of the two factors of the surplus-value created by a given amount of capital, one, the rate of surplus-value, cannot be increased, except by diminishing the other, the number of workmen. This contradiction comes to light, as soon as by the general employment of machinery in a given industry, the value of the machine-produced commodity regulates the value of all commodities of the same sort; and it is this contradiction, that in its turn, drives the capitalist, without his being conscious of the fact, [71] to excessive lengthening of the working-day, in order that he may compensate the decrease in the relative number of labourers exploited, by an increase not only of the relative, but of the absolute surplus-labour.

Would you mind tl;dr that shit?

my english sucks too hard to do that shit, it's hard enough to understand in my native language

price an value have no correlation, its one of the reasons markets must be abolished

Labor and value have no correlation either.

seeing the example you've given you've never read marx, opinion discarded

Holy shit how are you this dumb.

Value = SOCIALLY NECESSARY labor time.

Not just labor time, but SOCIALLY NECESSARY labor time. Capital is not just a system of production, but a unity of production and circulation–of the production of things by private labor and their consumption via exchange in the sphere of circulation. That total movement is value and it's quantitatively expressed in money terms. Value is in no way identical with labor time taken in abstraction from the specific form of production.

Labor does not have value. Within the capitalist mode of production, value is the category that expresses the social recognition of labor and its indirect regulation via the market.

"I got rekt :("

Cool story bro. People assign value, not labor. Individuals value different work and objects wildly different from one another. A wheelchair is valued much higher by someone with no legs compared to someone with functional ones, it's entirely subjective.

so you're acknowledging you got wrekt, admitting you never read marx
and yet you still continue talking stupid shit
you seem ti think i give a shit
read marx

it's ridiculous you're so stupid to think the shit you're saying isn't debunked by marx and you're making a clown of yourself

Fantastic counter argument. Just look at this excellently written rebuttal. You've really convinced me that the labor theory of value isn't a crock of shit with your fantastic reasoning skills and well researched data.

The LTV is bullshit.

"When speaking in terms of a labor theory of value, value, without any qualifying adjective should theoretically refer to the amount of labor necessary to produce a marketable commodity, including the labor necessary to develop any real capital used in the production. Both David Ricardo[1] and Karl Marx tried to quantify and embody all labor components in order to develop a theory of the real price, or natural price of a commodity.[2]"
Labor is a "cost" to the person laboring, but how costly that feels to the laborer is completely subjective, the trouble of "acquiring a mowed lawn" (the difficulty/expense of having your lawn mowed, either by yourself or others), even assuming all lawns were exactly the same, is subjective. The value of a mowed lawn is subjective, unless you mean "value" in the retarded terms about "how much labor it embodies", which is also subjective because whether you have a robot do it, a well-trained horse dragging around a mower, have someone do it very quickly by running with a mower, or have a bunch of Chinese people use butter knives, the amount of labor varies wildly even though the product doesn't, you might object:
"The value of a commodity increases in proportion to the duration and intensity of labor performed on average for its production… "socially necessary" is that the value only increases in proportion to this labor as it is performed with average skill and average productivity."
Skill is subjective: is a statue that is made 1.534x times faster but matches the model it is based off of 5% less exactly better or worse? depends on your time preference, and productivity is tied directly to exchange value, which is tied directly to how people subjectively value that object for exchange; you might be able to get a huge exchange value out of a movie prop or a signed photograph, hence the productivity of the labor of making the prop/signature is very high, even though the intensity of the labor was relatively low. To try to save your "objective" theory by tying in "average skill" and "average productivity" is fucking retarded.

I…yeah, I kind of fucked up there. I'm trying to not be…wordy?

Actually its perfectly viable because almost all modern marketable commodities are mass produced and homogenous goods. The market does not consist of children selling their clay figures, it consists of large operations producing commodities an masse to the same standards, sold for the same price, regardless of teeny tiny differences.

Nothing you said contradicts what I said. Price and value have no correlation. They are unrelated. One does not rely on the other. They do not mix. They are not partners. One shouldnt be associated with the other. They are not a pair, a duo, or a couple.

Labor and value have no correlation. They are unrelated. One does not rely on the other. They do not mix. They are not partners. One shouldnt be associated with the other. They are not a pair, a duo, or a couple.

Except that can be proven wrong. I can show you that there is a correlation gradient greater than 0.05 for labor and value with value being represented with something like a survey asking people how much they value the thing in question, this is of course, with multiplication of labor being taken into account with tools and machines.

Whereas, mathematically speaking price and value have no correlation.

You just admitted that value comes from individuals perception and not from the labor itself. It doesn't matter how much labor you put into your shit pterodactyl, it won't give it value because nobody wants it. Even if some people did their perception of its value would vary wildly. Some people really give a shit about comic books, enough to pay thousands of dollars for them, I couldn't give any less of a fuck about them.

Oh yeah? Give me a better way to quantify it that can be standardized for everything. Your argument that value is based on individual perception is invalidated by the fact that for measuring value in the way I mentioned, the perceptions of many people is averaged together.

The labor produced by machines is thus produced by the laborers who design, manufacture and maintain them.

Congrats on being vague. I can tell you don't have a fucking clue about what you are talking about. Go out and do this for an object, return with your findings and everyone can laugh at how when you realize that labor and value have no correlation.

There is none. Value is a subjective thing dictated by the individual. There is no objective value.

You're making a statement with nothing to back it up. What makes you think that is true? Do you have a reason or is it just emotionally charged mcarthyist rhetoric?

You mean like what you did here?:

Go outside, do your retarded expirement you pulled out of your ass, post your findings and we will then proceed to laugh at you.

ok

holy shit m8, do you not know that finding the correlation gradient is used in economics all the time? This is completely standard protocal

Go outside, do your retarded expirement you pulled out of your ass, post your findings and we will then proceed to laugh at you.

Why won't you? Because it will prove how full of shit you are? Come on, grab a shoe, get the fuck out of your house and come up with the objective value of labor.

why are you so mad? Is it because you can form a valid argument?

*cant

Your theory is a masterpiece. We are on the verge of blowing the fuck out of every capitalist porky piece of shit out there with this thing. Once we prove the labor theory of value correct, capitalists will have egg on their face and we will have the upper hand, people will flock to socialism hand over fist. All you have to do is go outside and find the objective value of labor put into some objects, post your findings and we can finally triumph against the porkies. Onward comrade! Godspeed!

What is so hard about putting your money where your mouth is and putting your theory to the test? Why do you keep dodging this? Is it because you know it's just a bunch of bullshit? Is it because deep down inside you know the labor theory of value is wrong and don't want that to be validated, since you can still use cognitive dissonance in your current state? Just post your findings brah, that's all I'm asking.

If you're going to use that as an argument then you must concede that you don't know if you are right either untill the findings are found.

It's a good thing marx made a distinction between private labor, the labor that the individual worker puts into a commodity, and social labor, the labor that makes up a society and perpetuates it. It sure is a good thing that Marx said that the gap between private and social labor is bridged via demand, which in turn is affected via production.

Haha, brofist!

okay
time

machines make everything, and everyone has 10 years "state" service before they retire to enjoy life

base needs are free and credits buy luxury

1 hour = 1 credit

1 hour = 1 credit

luxury artisan jobs credit dictated by social relations

democratic vote after substantial evidence that a new utility should become a basic right and it is affordable with current workforce/population projections, for example: internet, drone delivery of goods, mail service, trash etc

I dont see how. It applies to every commodity, some are just larger numbers than others. 2 Different statues are two different commodities.

No two commodities are identical. Even if you use a mold.

As I explained already, they are treated by society as such. One barrel of oil is the same as the next from the same source. One dell pc is the same as the next.

The minute differences and the fact that they are made from different atoms doesnt mean they are treated as non-homogenous goods.

lrn2economics

A lawnmower has use-value (utility) for you. Your labor doesn't. It brings you disutility. And how much you 'value' your labor force depends on societal forces (supply and demand), so not entirely subjective.

The rest of the post boils down to the le mudpie argument. Maybe you should read the first pages of Das Kapital:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm

How can your form prices, then?
You cannot compare your subjective value (utility) to somebody else's.

How much for the idol of r'kka?

newfag here, can you explain to me who said that machines produce no value?
sage for off-topic.

That's what I said, labor is a cost to the laborer, but presumably the laborer values the benefits of the labor more than he disdains the costs of it.
It is because demand is entirely subjective. Everyone could make a conscious decision to arbitrarily act on different preferences tomorrow, they probably won't, but they could.

No, "le mudpie" argument doesn't address how fucking retarded "socially necessary" is, where I addressed that here from "Skill is subjective…" onwards.
The use value is absolutely dependent on the "amount" (quality, time) of labor, if you have a special machine that will randomly need an expensive input (we'll call it radioactivium, an input that decays after 2 hours) once per week, and you need to put the input in 50 minutes after it is needed, and you can make the input in a variety of ways (some significantly faster and in some ways more expensive), although you could say "durr, the end result is the same, they all have the same amount of labor in them," the "use value" of a unit of radioactivium that can be produced in 40 minutes is much higher than the use value of a unit of radioactivium that requires 5 hours to be produced, because if you only have an arrangement that produces the radioactivium you'll have to constantly be producing this expensive input throughout the week so that 1 input is produced ~30 minutes after the previous one has finished decaying so that you can be assured that the special machine with a valuable end result is able to be supplied in its narrow window. Even though 1 unit of radioactivium might have the same physical properties, the time of production will vastly alter its utility. Not to mention this objection in no way addresses my point about how people subjectively value the signatures of different individuals or the artwork of different individuals, because "skill" is totally subjective, because "productivity" (essentially exchange value/hour) is a result of peoples' subjective valuations of a commodity in the market, two signatures can have the same "intensity/quantity" of labor and be vastly different in their economic value because "skill" is so subjective. Again, this is just a retarded theory that has to sneak in the fact that all valuations are subjective in the back door and pretend like it never happened "ignore the fact that productivity and skill are totally subjective, look over here!"

...

I had though of this yesterday. Generally it means companies will have to rely purely on sales for making any profit at some point, since machines and robots might generally have a fixed amount they can produce, and unlike humans, they need maintenance, lest it becomes more expensive to replace for fix them.

but profit doesn't come from exchange, you can't make value through market exchange. Value and profit is made through production.

i cant believe this hasn't been posted yet. Everyone who uses the Mudpie argument should watch this.
youtube.com/watch?v=UltE6U4t8Vc

what? Does it just fall out of the sky?

It can fluctuate depending if there's an outselling of competition, Or price gouging. but that profit would be tiny in caparison to the amount of money would could save not improving working conditions. Can't do that with robots.

The production process, that by the way is conveniently forgot in the neo-classical school, its like the things appear in the market shelfs magicaly and value is meadured by abstract things like happiness.
Exchange just moves profit around, its a zero sum game, even if a reap you off there's no value generated in the agregate.

...

No! Becuz robots have their own sense of value!

Thank god Marx specificaly developed his theory for the capitalist mode of production, thing you would know if you read the first pages of Das Capital.

If I use latin, it means I'm smart :^)