Are there any fellow right wingers on Holla Forums or is everyone here anarchist/Socialist/market socialist etc?

adjective
1.
asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, especially in political, economic, or social life.

Yes

kek

I've been called a right winger on here for expressing my egalitarian views

Right wingers are retarded because they believe that value just magically appears when someone decides that a commodity would make them really happy.

...

What should value be based on if it is not supply and demand?

wot

...

Hmmmm I don't know if only we knew where the supply of commodities came from oh well I guess it will forever stay a mystery.

...

oh never mind, it seems you're too stupid to have this discussion. please leave

I can do this all day, famrade

It comes from people that want to sell their commodities.

...

bretty gud

Did these people cast conjure lesser commodity and bring into being with their wizard powers?

Does a rock suddenly valuable since it is buried further underground and would therefore require more labor to unearth it?

...

wew lad

Naturally. However, if the socially necessary labour time to obtain that rock normally would be something in the order of 'just go outside and pick one up' then naturally one outlier hard-to-get rock wouldn't have any effect on the value of rocks as a commodity.

...

So what do you think determines the value of something?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value

I am not talking about how value is realized, I am talking about how it is created.

And that is, of course, through labour.

But you just admitted that that buried rock is more valuable than your run-of-the-mill surface rocks, why would i, or anyone i might want to barter with, want surface rocks when deeper buried rocks are more valuable?

I didn't admit that at all! In fact I said something to quite the opposite effect. Do you not know how to read or are you just retarded?

In any case, you're doing the spurdo flag an injustice by posting with it on. Choose something more suited to you.

when you get so triggered you eff up which posts you're responding to

does
not mean yes anymore?

...

kill yourself

...

Wow rude

...

...

...

then lurk roar faggot

It does, unless you add a qualifier following that word that explains how this is not the case under a different set of circumstances or assumptions.

If most rocks of that type are deep within the earth, then yes, their value will be greater. However, if only one is and the rest lay comfortably upon the grass outside my home, then the one in the earth will not be particularly that much dearer. Because I would be able to acquire an object of the exact same characteristics without too much effort. Thus, because the socially necessary labour time is about five minutes, getting a rock of the same type from deep within the earth through several hours of work will still only yield a commodity worth, on average, about five minutes of work.

Remember, it is the labour theory of value, not the labour theory of price.

...

...

...

I'm pretty sure there is still a contradiction, if each individual rock's value is not determined by the labor required to acquire that particular rock, but rather the average labor required for the entire "commodity" aren't you simply saying that value is based entirely on supply, with demand having no influence?

Not at all. I am saying that value is created in the process of labour.

Supply and demand affect price, or exchange value, but the plain old value is not touched. An object's price can be far greater or far lower than its actual value. Look at diamonds, for example. In terms of value they're not all that much - if we wanted to, we could easily produce enough diamonds for everyone in the world who wants one to have one. However, their price or exchange value is inflated through the creation of artificial demand and artificial scarcity, as the few diamond producers in our world who own the reserves keep them in the ground to prevent their price from tanking.

Again, I refer you to the last sentence in

I understand your distinction between price and value, i simply think that that particular definition of value is meaningless.

If we assume that diamonds have a "value" that is independent of the price a person is willing to pay for it and the only way to increase that "value" is through labor, then doesn't labor become analogous to entropy?
Whereby value is added to raw materials by imposing order on then through labor? but then a highly ordered arrangement of materials would be more "valuable" despite the fact that it may be worthless in form or function? and therefore no person would be willing to pay a price that corresponds to its "value"?

i meant value becomes analogous to entropy

Yeah there's a ton of tankies on here.

They believe in the 'muh equality under the law' meme. So basically just the gubmint pretending like everyone is in similar circumstances to begin with

Seeing anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists going at it with each other is the funniest thing.

I don't see how any of this is even remotely comparable to entropy.

You're on the right track. Just because you put labour into something doesn't mean you get guaranteed value. However, if you do get value out of something then that value is inextricably tied to the labour that goes into that thing.

If you spend a year's worth of work building a shitty statue that nobody wants out of shit you found outside, when somebody decides to shell out $15 for your remarkable piece of outsider art, the way you generated that surplus value of $15 is through your labour.

But doesn't that mean that the surplus $15 "value" is due to the market value (or price) of my shitty statue?

Or does the labor theory of value simply reduce to the meaningless truism that in order for any value to be produced, labor must be done.

It seems to me that when using the labor theory of value people usually imply that labor and value exist in some relation such that as labor increases so does value, instead of what it seems you've reduced it to:

if labour = 0, then value = 0

because this gives us no indication of what value might be when labor doesn't equal 0, and is a statement that could only be in doubt if one were living in the garden of eden

...

The very fact that you have a shitty statue is because you used your labour power to convert some shit you found into a shitty statue.

Here is a quote by Adam Smith:

Essentially, we could ask what differentiates an automobile from an ordinary pair of safety scissors. A bourgeois economist might be inclined to say that safety scissors are very abundant and cars are not, but a non-religious person would be able to tell you that compared to safety scissors, cars take a lot of work to build, not only in the assembling, but in the extraction of raw materials, their processing into usable metals, cutting and forging into parts, and so on.

What is embodied in the car that makes it dear to those who have it is many hours of human labour compared to the relatively few contained in the scissors. In the context of social production, a car will never be worth less than a pair of scissors, because the costs involved in creating it in labour are inherently greater. Thus, the value of the car is determined by the socially necessary labour time.

When you boil everything down to a matter of supply and demand, you are ignoring entirely the material conditions of production and the basis on which commodities are compared to each other. We are talking about value obtained in the process of social production.

Simply because unproductive labour also takes labour does not mean that labour does not produce value and thus profit.

here you can have one too