I there a better theory regards to what value of an good or service is beyond labor theory?

Six hours of fucking is not normal.
But on meth, it is.

How about 'postliberalism'? People are slowly coming to the conclusion that liberalism is over. We can appropriate the move beyond.

We take everything that's good about liberalism, but say we give people even more freedom. We stress the moral element of Adam Smith's invisible hand. We cite John Stuart Mill when he's talking about worker cooperatives.

Meanwhile we make Marx seem like just another of the great political philosophers. Many people in Europe seem to regard him like that already. We take some vital elements of his theory, not like we're following his doctrine, but like we're both sensible people coming to the same conclusions.

Yeah, that could be good.

A guy who made a career out of misunderstanding revealing of socially necessary labor time in the market as socially necessary labor time coming into being in the market. No, thank you.

There are people who can fuck for days. There was like some ancient eastern art of having sex that would train people to do it. I think the trick is to just be slow as fuck.

Sounds good to me.

"Working class" is a faulty abstraction in a global neoliberal economy predicating on the use of a permanently unemployed sector of the population to intimidate labor power. The unemployed absolutely must be included in the struggle for solidarity against capital because they are proletariat too.

That's why I said "not really better but..". At least he isn't a post-keynesian tbh

Hey, can someone make the argument for labour theory against free market's perpetual competition to me here.

What gives state labour the leg up on corporate competition on the production scale?

I think the value theory of labor and that the value is based on how much people will pay for it are flawed I was just wondering if there is a better alternative.

Ability to not only compete, but also to systematically cooperate.

Ok, so the competition is generated nationally(?), and resources distributed more effectively.

Ok I can see that. Have any texts to suggest me to help give me a foundation in labour theory in a modern context?

No. Competition still exists. Even on lower levels, not just between the enterprises. It's simply regulated competition. Not Capitalist "if your boss makes dumb decision, your factory is closed and you all starve".

And "resources distributed more effectively" is an oversimplification.

There is no "modern context". And you are making connection where there isn't one. Soviet economy was not based on Marx's LTV alone.

That did not come out right. But nobody read Marx here anyway, so why should I care?

Don't listen to this tankie OP. Read "Reclaiming Marx's Capital" but Andrew Kilman. It's one of the most important Marxist economic theories to come out since the early 20th century. It refutes many of the jabs at the LVT in a "modern context".

> author of several publications on Marxian economics,
Marxian is not Marxist.

Can you please kill yourself? Andrew Kilman is one of the most valuable Marxist still around today. The accusations of internal inconsistency thrown at Marx's economic theories have decimated the Marxist school of thought in modern economics, and refuting those accusations in a modern context(what Andrew does) is immeasurably valuable to bringing Marxism out of the fringe.

Andrew Kiliman is for all intents and purposes, an orthodox Marixst. If you like to contest this, please provide a reason why Richard Wolff and Andrew Kliman are not Marxist.

It's not "founded" by Marx. It takes bits and pieces of Marxism, just like Cultural Marxism does.

Stop with this cargo cultism.

Oh, it's you again?

Yes, it is. It uses Capital by Karl Marx as it's foundation.

What's wrong tankie? Can't provide a reason because you don't have one? Andrew Kliman is an orthodox Marxist.

Wolff is Marxist only in certain conclusions. His theory itself is not Marxist, not even dialectical.

I like Kliman, based rationalist.

Labor is the value of capital, but it is not the only source of value in the market. The proof is that petty commodity trade only requires the right of private property and agreement to trade which allows haggling. Generalized commodity trade generates a market of arbitrary prices anchored in nothing other than the general agreements of those who enter trade. Money arises and allows the disentangling of the moment of mutual satisfaction of trade and allows one to trade a use value and receive pure exchange value to seek the use value they desire elsewhere. It is not until generalized commodity >production< that SNLT becomes a price determiner by the process of competition. Without competition there is no SNLT price determination yet.

Fair enough. Kliman rejects the USSR as State Capitalist so the tankie would deem him to not be a Marxist. On the contrary, he is an orthodox Marxist justifying Marx's original theories as still holding up IN A MODERN CONTEXT.

...

Are you just gonna keep memeing or address what he says? He's done a lot more for Marxist economics than any ML has since the early 20th century.

He is not here. Only you are. And you can't make a single argument. Only point to people and wave hands:

Where is proof of that? None here.

And calling USSR a State Capitalist is what post-Trotskyists do. But prerequisite for that is revisionism of Marxism. You can't be simultaneously an orthodox Marxist and support hardcore revisionism of said Marxism.

Go to 49:00 in the video and address that.

Yes there is. The TSSI refutes many of the accusations of inconsistency that have destroyed Marx's theories in economics. Show me the ML equivalent?

And you have yet to point out how that's revisionism.

forgot le link
youtube.com/watch?v=qyFMKiHFZXg

Now I know I'm being trolled.

Why are you such a retard? IN the USSR M-C-M persisted! It is how the State operated in relation with the proletariat. Explain how this is revisionism to draw from this conclusion that the USSR was State Capitalist.

It's worse than that: it's how various soviet firms operated in relation to one another. They were literally exchanging commodities on a capital goods market.

Except State also printed money.

Are you talking post-1953 USSR?

The equivalent of a capitalist paying it's workers in company dollars. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip

Also
Please kill yourself.

Coherent posts, please. I can even point out your mistakes, if you don't verbalize your thought process.

Money, was produced in the USSR. It served as the universal equivalent, or abstract wealth.
Therefore we can say abstract wealth operated in the USSR.

Not only that but the Stalinist also revised the law of value so that the fact they were a commodity producing society did not stop them from being socialist. This was done in 1943: marxisthumanistinitiative.org/a-new-revision-of-marxian-economics

What does this even mean?

No. You couldn't buy MoP with money as a private person, for example.

In what sense?

No, we can't. Not without understanding what we mean by that.

Did what?

And you are quoting one article that says that the other article is wrong. That's it.

...

Cow is not MoP.

Please, learn some theory. Means of Production that need to be owned collectively are the industrial ones. Factories, to put it simply.

Please, learn some theory. Every fucking thing needs to be socially "owned".

Moustache poster is right, you are wrong.

what about my toothbrush???

lol

Once you've used it once, it is consumed. There's nothing to own anymore.

...

What the fuck? How is a defense of classical marxist theory (with regard to political economy) against revisionists who want to discard the LTV, simply "taking bits and pieces of marxism"?
Have you even read anything Andrew Kliman has written?

Oh fuck I missed this post. Here we have a fucking tankie defending commodity production in agriculture while simultaneously telling someone else to read theory. The irony is fucking painful.

The means of production are everything used to produce something other than the labourers themselves. This includes land and natural resources ("the subject of labour") you stupid fuck.

"If we examine the whole process from the point of view of its result, the product, it is plain that both the instruments and the subject of labour, are means of production, and that the labour itself is productive labour."

- Karl Marx

Capital: The Labour-Process And The Process Of Producing Surplus-Value

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm

Are you seriously trying to defend the "Cow = MoP"?

Industrialized.

It's not, if it discards class analysis.

Not that I can remember right now, no. And you are uniquely unconvincing - not a single quote or explanation on why Kliman is great.

This is marginally better than:

Please, read discussion in full. The question is whether money were "universal" in Soviet economy, not whatever your feverish imagination produced.

Are you seriously trying to defend the opposite?

It was. People don't live on rifles and tanks.

If MoP is considered not in the literal sense, but in the sense "what needs to be collectivized" - then yes. I do not think that personal ownership of one cow (in reasonably civilized conditions) could be considered a crime.

And I'm not "defending it". This is a standard position.

I've got it. You are schizophrenic..

A cow (that is utilized in agricultural production) is a natural resource along with the land that it grazes upon, and therefore the subject of labour. Since the subject of labour is a means of production (along side the instruments of production), then yes, it stands to reason that a fucking cow can be a means of production.

Fucking what? First you claim that Kliman discards class analysis (he doesn't) and then you admit that you haven't read him. Are you just making shit up at this point?

As for why Kliman is "so great": he's responsible for the TSSI (temporal single system interpretation) of Marx's Law of Value, that denies that their are inconsistencies in marx's theory, suggesting instead the these apparent inconsistencies are the result of misinterpretation of marx by past theorists (in other words he denies that the transformation problem is even a thing).

I'm including the relevant PDF but here's a link with some videos if reading is too hard for you:

kapitalism101.wordpress.com/2009/05/07/interview-with-andrew-kliman/

No. Not in a context we are talking in.

You are the one who said he considered USSR State Capitalist. You can't pull this off without mental gymnastics about Marxism (like Djilas' revisionism that classified bureaucracy as "capitalists" or something equally retarded).

Did you read or did you watch?

Then you're using a very arbitrary (metaphysical really) definition. You're defining MoP in a legalistic rather than social fashion.

Ah, of course how could I forget that stalinists seem to hold state ownership alone to somehow be a negation of capitalism. Because capital must be held by private individuals to be capital, right? Capital couldn't possibly be personified in a "public" institution like the state!
It's a good thing we have you to correct the revisionist errors of ultra-leftists like Engels, just where would we be if people like Engels where get away with pedaling such revisionism as this:

Damned revisionist!

I did both in fact! How did you go?

Those words don't mean what you think they mean.

When will Anarchists stop arguing with strawmen?

Peddling, not pedaling, FFS.

And we already had selective quoting of Engels from the very same place just yesterday. What is with revisionists and Engels? Shilling instructions got updated?

Proceed here:

I didn't. Judging by your argumentation, neither did you. Well, either that or he is hardly worth any time.

The cow is a MOP.
Where do you draw the line? Who said one cow? What about the farms the Kolkhoz's owned, where they sold their left over grain on a market?

Can you buy a cow with money? Can you also buy other things? Yes? Then it serves as the universal equivalent.

Are you unfamiliar not only with Marxism, but with Socialism in general?

Since you definitely are unfamiliar with DiaMat, the full answer:

Depending on circumstances, but in general - when you need to hire workers.

You did.

Collectively owned. You couldn't buy the whole kolkhoz with money.

>From the middle of the 1960s to the late 70s capitalism at a world level was characterised by intense class struggles and radical social movements: from the urban uprisings in the USA to insurrectionary strikes in Poland
Ah yes, Solidarność and their revolutionary demands such as putting church service on TV.

I don't think this adds up to a coherent position if coupled with rejection of co-ops, and the ususal reason given for that. The belief usually espoused by folks like endnotes that capitalism doesn't require capitalists, that is, that market pressure is so strong that worker-managed firms would basically act the same, only makes sense in a world of razor-thin profit margins where capitalists basically consume just what's necessary and have to re-invest everything. We don't live in such a world, and if we did, you couldn't advocate for experimenting with free access either.

I welcome the latter, the former ("dissolving the social form of things") is impossible. People produce stuff in groups, with inputs that have multiple uses becoming outputs that have multiple uses. One could even argue seeing things as primarily the things themselves, use-value, and not as moments in processes is the result of ignorance about production processes, an ignorance that comes from living in capitalist society :P

How is a
just a modification of the view that
and not an example of
?

cont. from
Why is this tremendously important? If Marx had finished his project, it would have been haram for you to think about these issues?

An anarchist could have told you the same thing.

The leap from consciously comparing things in terms of labour as in Adam Smith to an automatic comparison by the system already happened in Ricardo.

Althusser made such a recommendation. Where did Sraffa?

Then some guy is quoted claiming that labour vouchers wouldn't stop value forcing its self-expansion on people again, but no reason is given.

Reply to my post in the RD Wolf thread tankie. I listed a specific example of when during the 5 year plan Stalin economies labour and examples of how the USSR made use of capitalist structures like banks, interest etc.

This is completely absurd. The necessity for socialisation derives from the nature of the MoP "in the literal sense", not the other way around.

And I will say it again: it's not only the means of production that need to be socialized, but also the products.

You are the one who is absurd. The MoP that need to be socialized are defined by their necessity to get socialized. Not by being involved in production process.

Private ownership of one nail does not make anything Capitalist. When will you learn the difference between private and personal property?

What does this mean? In practice? If money are transforming into labour vouchers, while the price is being determined by the society, rather than the law of value, can we say that "products are being socialized"?

Either way, I'd like to see some quotes, because your own thoughts are unconvincing and bizarre.

Idealist argument. Neoclassical economists got debunked by Sraffa in the 1920s, and they don't give a fuck. Economics is taught the way it is because it is in the interest of the ruling class. Same with theology. In each field, there are a few left-leaning types that have virtually no influence, because their conclusions go against the interest of the ruling class, no matter how carefully researched and intelligent their stuff is.

As for Kliman's TSSI, excuse me for making this lazy argument: I have never seen praise coming from people good at math and logic, it's always from contrarian hipsters and artsy people who do Marxist poetry, Marxist movie reviews and shit like that. So I tend to be skeptical. Can someone describe in their own words what they think the TSSI even is? I can't make sense of the wikipedia article, and I say that as somebody who already knows that Capital I had everything exchanging according to labor values and in Capital III it's according to prices of production with a uniform profit rate.

Uh, I haven't read either, but how does one contradict the other? From what I understand labor values underpin prices of production while the uniform profit rate is achieved in exchange, due to some firms producing under socially necessary labor time while others do not; hence, the ones who don't have their profits eaten by those who do.

Still interested in an answer to your question, though. No one here's managed to explain TSSI despite supporting it in principle.

Capital 1 basically argues like this: Profit comes from from labor, when cappies trade with each other one may gain what the other loses, this trade doesn't increase profit for the boss class as a whole. Products are basically sold according to the amount of work put into them.

If Capital 1 was a complete description of capitalism, profit rates would be the highest in those sectors with the least amount of dead labor (machinery and bought inputs) relative to living labor, leading to the question why any capitalist would ever invest in other sectors.

In Capital 3, prices of production are presented. This model assumes an equalized profit rate, and with that, that price ratios are systematically different from labor values.

How do you put these two models together? One "explanation" I've heard was that Marx abandoned the model in C1 and C3 is the proper one, and he didn't get around to publish that during his lifetime because he was embarrassed or something like that. This doesn't make any sense, because the draft for C3 was already done before C1 got published. Marx had known the concept of prices of production before publishing C1. Maybe C1 was meant as more of a description of what happens at the aggregate. (I don't believe there is a strong tendency towards one profit rate in the real world, last but not least because of the patent system.)

Here's a good explanation: socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.ca/2015/03/klimans-explanation-of-marxs-labour.html

Interesting.

While I still can't make sense of the TSSI and suspect it is incoherent, my impression is that the blogger is full of himself and argues in bad faith. The comments by Hedlund and the former neoliberal are interesting.

For those that want them:

Not the person you replied to, but I recommend you read his book. I have it laying around but I wanna get through capital first. He used the TSSI to write his next book "The Failures of Capitalist Production". Just because leftypol can't into theory doesn't mean it's incoherent. Wikipedia is garbage for communist theory and history, they're so blatantly biased.

No kidding?

On the contrary, scientific socialism is all about the analysis of the production process.

Your MoP that need to be socialized, on the other hand, since you can't come up with a better explanation than… their necessity to be socialized (!!!), seem to be defined by the fact they were actually nationalised by Stalin.

You don't seem to handle your own concept very well: your example of personnal property is "private ownership of a nail".

Now, what about giving me a citation by Marx or Engels about the difference between personal and private property, so I can actually learn something?

For starters, you don't understand what labour vouchers are. They are a proof that you worked a certain amount of labour, thus entitling you to a certain amount of products. They are not to be exchanged for said products. They are no money, and money doesn't "transform into labour vouchers": these are two completely different things.

So in practice, labour vouchers would work like being entitled to a big house because you have many children (which would be a "family voucher"): your children did not replace rent, you don't have to exchange them for your house.

As for prices, there are no prices in socialism, because there is no trade anymore. Where there are prices, there is a market, and where is a market, there is the law of value. You cannot escape the law of value without getting rid of markets, which the USSR didn't. Workers in the USSR depended on the market to get food (at the very least); in other words, they depended on the market for their survival: they were proletarians and petits-bourgeois!

Sure:
>Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products
K. Marx, Critique of the Gotha programme.

My god.
It's beautiful.

It's called context.

If you define MoP as something that makes a bottleneck in wealth flow (production circle) within society - which is why it needs to be socialized - you can't arbitrarily assign the same status (bottleneck that needs to be socialized) to something that simply looks like MoP, but does not form a bottleneck - as is the case with hammer and nails.

That has no relevance to anything I said. Moreover, "scientific socialism" (as used by Engels) is a different thing.

> Your MoP that need to be socialized, on the other hand, since you can't come up with a better explanation than… their necessity to be socialized (!!!), seem to be defined by the fact they were actually nationalised by Stalin.
Yes. If we are talking about specific situation - that being USSR - we have to talk about specifics of that situation.

If you want to prove that USSR went Capitalist when it did not nationalise hammers and nails - then do it. What practical arguments do you have? Surely it's not just an extremely biased interpretation of one quote? Why am I asking? Propaganda machines of American "Marxians" created hundreds, if not thousands, of books that twist and distort anything Marx (or any Marxist of note) ever said.

Do you have anything beyond nitpicking?

Communist Manifesto:
> The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
> In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

> Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that;

Did you read anything actually written by Marx?

(cont.)
This is trolling, right?

That's final phase of communism. Read what follows:

> He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.
> Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption.
> Hence, equal right here is still in principle – bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.

> But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

Marx literally explains what "first phase of communism" (that later came to be dubbed as Socialism) would look like (as it was in USSR) and how labour vouchers will be similar to money (bourgeois exchange) and how labour vouchers will be exchanged for products (means of consumption), because you need need advancement of productive forces to escape the vicious cycle of poverty - but I'm not quoting the whole book here.

But you didn't look up what you quoted from some crypto-Anarchist article, did you? Like a little idealist you looked at form and considered meaning unimportant.

There are no "different things" IRL. There are different processes, which can coexist and even superimpose on each other. That's basic DiaMat. But you don't believe in it's existence, do you?

Unsurprisingly, you didn't quote the end of the sentence, that actually proves you wrong:
>There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.
Why don't we need to abolish "personal property"? Because it is a good thing? Because it will survive socialism? No! We don't need to abolish it because capitalism itself is already doing it. "Personal property" is already reactionary in capitalism!

Note that you didn't actually provide a citation using the terms "personal property". I am more and more inclined to believe you got this concept from "some crypto-Anarchist article".

You're taking this out of context, marx wasn't implying that such property would continue to exist under communism as he believed capitalism would destroy it before then:

This here seems to imply that the product-voucher exchange is not the same thing as commodity exchange.

You realise that, if the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, that means there is no exchange of commodities anymore, right? Otherwise saying the same principle prevails wouldn't make any sense.

Marginal utility.

This.
Bad comprehension and selective reading seem to be the defining traits of tankies.

gr8 post Comr8

10/10

He meant what he wrote.

Which is why it is irrelevant.

Marx literally wrote that Communism does not concern itself with it. Why are you pretending that it is some cornerstone of Marxism, the defining feature of it?

Read the whole Critique, will you?

No I don't. Marx wrote that it is similar to modern bourgeois exchange. This does not mean that no shred of similarity to modern bourgeois exchange should exist as you imply.

...

As a Hegelian I must acknowledge the validity of multiple and even opposing views even if they are not fully true. In this case though, he made a good point against ultra leftist's claims to being true to Marx.

You'll get one too once you make a post that isn't ironic shitposting.

are epistemological and ontological pluralism the one true paths, A.W.?

>"Personal property" is already reactionary in capitalism!
Owning my own underpants is reactionary? Sounds like a pedo-anarchist position.

Do you subscribe to that communisation nonsense? I have no idea what makes you think that quoting a text by Marx where he advocates that people will obtain their INDIVIDUAL consumption by using their INDIVIDUAL labor vouchers to obtain that INDIVIDUAL consumption for themselves, you know, INDIVIDUALLY.

Ontological pluralism with epistemological monism. One principle to know them all, but many to be known.

… as long as it has already been destroyed! This is what Marx literally wrote in your citation! In no way this was a defense of pre-capitalist types of property, as you would like make us believe; the remnants of these types of property must be got rid of along with bourgeois property.

"Similar to" bourgeois exchange means it is not bourgeois exchange! Don't you understand that?

Yes! In socialism you won't own anything, including your underpants. Which doesn't mean anyone will want to take it from you, nor have the right to do so.

Tell me: do you own your house? Personally, I don't. Does that mean anyone can come in without my consent? Of course not.

My god you're an idiot for misunderstanding him that badly.

Property and ownership are distinct from use and possession. For example: If you rent your house you do not own it, and yet people cannot simply walk in off the street (according to the law in most western countries neither can your landlord). So despite not owning your house you do have the right to *use* it.

In a communist society you won't own things in the sense that you do today, but that doesn't mean there won't be things that you have exclusive right to use. Like your underwear.

No one wants your fucking underwear.

>We in Russia (in the third year since the overthrow of the bourgeoisie) are making the first steps in the transition from capitalism to socialism or the lower stage of communism. Classes still remain, and will remain everywhere for years after the proletariat’s conquest of power. Perhaps in Britain, where there is no peasantry (but where petty proprietors exist), this period may be shorter. The abolition of classes means, not merely ousting the landowners and the capitalists—that is something we accomplished with comparative ease; it also means abolishing the small commodity producers, and they cannot be ousted, or crushed; we must learn to live with them. They can (and must) be transformed and re-educated only by means of very prolonged, slow, and cautious organisational work. They surround the proletariat on every side with a petty-bourgeois atmosphere, which permeates and corrupts the proletariat, and constantly causes among the proletariat relapses into petty-bourgeois spinelessness, disunity, individualism, and alternating moods of exaltation and dejection.
Lenin, Infantile disorder.

So then where does the value for commodities come from? How can you postulate the actual value of commodities if you're unwilling to adopt a quantitative theory of value?

>It is not until generalized commodity >production< that SNLT becomes a price determiner by the process of competition. Without competition there is no SNLT price determination yet.
This isn't true. Socially necessary labour time always determines the price. The difference, when commodity production isn't generalised yet, lies in the fact that the society taken into consideration is the one the buyer has access to as another option to get his product, typically… himself!

Why do you value x over y? No reason. Value IS NOT ONTOLOGICAL. It isn't there, anywhere, at any time. WE posit value, and it's completely arbitrary why and what we value. We NEED food, but why does one person value apples more than bananas? No fucking reason, one person just likes one thing more. Why do some people value shoes more than their children? No fucking reason.

Trade in and of itself does not entail ANY metaphysical presuppositions of value based on anything. The exchange value of a basic commodity in petty commodity trade is literally whatever the owner exchanges it for.

Yeah, you keep believing that buddy. All the circular reasoning in the world still gets you one place: your dogmatic beginning.

Yes, by trading.

Trade is in basic form simply agreement to exchange between two holders of a private property. What is exchanged for what, and how much, are arbitrary and depend on that mere agreement. There is no metaphysical value underlying this agreement of exchange.

Because our needs are different from each other, and that people belonging to different social classes posit different needs. A poor individual won't have the luxury to purchase a quarter kilo of steak every week from the grocery store as their meager wage does not allow it, and neither does the market price for the steak. Our exchange in a market society comes from preexisting structures of production which reflect back upon and shape our exchange process.

...

And there is nothing metaphysical in the time I need to make a product.

That post is proof A.W, has zero familiarity with Marx, even though he says Marxmarxmarx all the time. He is like an "audiophile" who seems to talk about sound technology, but it's all just nonsense.

For prices not being related to physical labor costs, at least one of the following statements has to be true:
1) The traded things are not continuously produced, e.g. unique art pieces (and the lack of repetition doesn't merely mean that stuff is outside the scope of the LTV, it is outside the scope of scientific inquiry).
2) The initial owners of the things brought to the market do not need to obtain their inputs for producing these on the market.
3) here is some big state subsidy/credit program going on, so you can have ongoing production of a thing, even though you can't get enough money to buy the needed inputs from the money it sells for.

Surely one can find examples of some specific niche where some of this applies, but that wouldn't be descriptive of how mass production of commodities usually works. Hence, the LTV applies to reality and has predictive power, unlike your position of "everything is subjective in our subjective individual souls lawl".

>There is no meta physical value underlying this agreement of repeated exchange.
Fixed.

Can't believe I'm going with AW on this one.

You keep assuming labor being the source of all commodities (it's not), and you keep assuming a full capitalist market already existent at the point of argument (it's not). My argument has to do with the logic at a certain point, and you keep trying to mix shit into it which is not relevant.

Done with you.

Dear AW,
I don't get why it's so hard for you to get the banal argument about reproduction.
1. A lot of stuff is produced regularly. 2. The inputs for a regularly produced type of product have to be obtained regularly. 3. In a world where different parts of production chains that are crossing and looping are privately owned by different actors that obtain their inputs by selling their outputs, price ratios need to be within certain boundaries. (And of course there are exceptions with subsidies, but that doesn't change the fact that this describes what is typical.)

A whole bike will usually not sell for a lower price than the price of one of its components, say the saddle. I fail to see the controversy in that. This is Marx101, and I don't think somebody who has some beef with Marx, say an Anarchist, would even disagree with that.

Come again? Such an assumption is stated nowhere. The post even explicitly mentions products that have inputs the initial owner does not buy on the market. What do you think could be such an input?

Don't be silly. When you something dumb because you initially misunderstand something, it's better to own up to that than making theories about fictional implicit assumptions by your "opponent" that only make you sound like you are very lacking in the social skill of roughly seeing where people are coming from when they try to have a conversation with you. I suggest you leave for a couple of months, try to grow as a person, and come back with a different name (or none), because your brand is tainted, if I my say so.

If this was directed to me and was meant to further discussion on "cow is MoP" and "owning hammer and nails should be illegal under communism", I must point out that Lenin didn't mean literal abolishment via legal means there.

Activity, which bases on ownership of hammer and nails (or a cow) is economically ineffective in industrial economy. Not illegal.

A toddler touches an oven that is still very hot. The toddler screams.

Different groups of people have their different interpretations of the situation. Some folks say this:
People with such an opinion are called conservatives.

Some other folks say this:
These people are a broad group of reformists as well as old-fashioned Marxists.

And some very special folks say this:
These special snowflakes have many names: ultra-leftists, Wertkritiker, "Neue Marx-Lektüre", Communisation "theorists", Krisis, pomo idiots.

kek

This post is pretty fucking baller, it's going in the collection.

Leave it to a stalinist to see abolition of property in legal terms, as the revolution is just a set of policies issued from above by the fucking government.

*as if the

We were talking about legal terms. Read the thread.

Nah fam, I'm pretty sure it's just you.

Marginal utility is not something you observe. Another problem is that decreasing marginal utility is only true up to a point. If it were totally true, you would put all your food in a mixer to get maximum happiness. When marginal utility is coupled with agnosticism about the income distribution (or rather, apology for that masked as agnostic), you get pretty bizarre arguments about how everything has decreasing marginal utility except money.