If a worker is entitled to the full value of his labor does this mean his child can become his slave...

If a worker is entitled to the full value of his labor does this mean his child can become his slave? Because it takes labor (fucking) to make a child, and the full value of sexual labor would be a child slave.

Other urls found in this thread:

fee.org/articles/soviet-economists-part-company-with-marx/
jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-red-and-the-black/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

yes. absolutely. I made it, it's my property

rothbard pls go

wew

Sure, if you want to take that definition to its logical conclusion. But in context Marx is talking about commodities that are sold once created.

Are human beings commodities? Most people don't think so. A baby is more like a by-product of your body.

This is why Marxism is a spook.

Sure, if you're talking about Ricardian socialism the basic premise is the recuperation of the value produced by the working class but that's fully within bourgeois logic (an equivalent for an equivalent).

In any case, a worker isn't remunerated for their actual active labour but rather for their capacity to labour for a given, definite period of time. The worker never receives in their wage anything representing their actual labour–only their capacity to labour. As such, the value of labour-power is equivalent to the costs associated with what it takes for you to walk into your job day in and day out without dying, getting sick/weak, or quitting.

That's Marx's big shift from Ricardo, the discovery of labour-power.

And obligatory: the goal is not to capture value or reconquer profits. The goal is to be rid of the whole fucking system of value, the shit of the money-mediated mess of it all.

Nobody is entitled to anything. And there is no inherent "value" in labor. Even USSR gave up on labor theory of value because they realized it was wrong.

No, because children are worthless.

yes, and in socialism children will be forced by law to pay back, when he reaches adulthood every single penny the parents spent on his clothes, food, etc.

On the move away from labor theory of value, you can read here:

fee.org/articles/soviet-economists-part-company-with-marx/

I remember reading about it in a larger book, but now i cannot remember which it was, but this article is decent.

t. Someone who doesn't understand the LTV. The LTV wouldn't even apply in a socialist society. It's an explanation for market prices.

Except companies use central planning(and always have) to allocate resources. Prices were closer to equilibrium in Soviet Hungary than they were in western nations: jacobinmag.com/2012/12/the-red-and-the-black/

Also read this PDF about hypercomputing and central planning. I agree that the Soviet Union should've used a market socialism system, but not because of the ECP - for judging firm performance.

But that is still in context of the pricing system. It's not really the same thing.

But that an interesting article though

It is though. The ECP is supposed to be about resource allocation, firms don't compete with themselves to get a price signal, because that would be stupid(actually Sears tried this once and the company tanked). The price represents a monetary value - which is the means that they obtain resources. The way they allocate them doesn't involve price signals which is my main point.

Yeah, but that still is very different, just from the difference between a company and the entire economy. And larger companies tend to be more wasteful and have harder time allocating resources effectively, so it seems scaling that up even more would be a disaster.

Do you have a source on this? Also again, read the PDF on hyper computing.

You're also making the assumption that markets are not wasteful, when in fact they are. They're arguably more wasteful as central planning, think about how much food is wasted for example because markets can't efficiently allocate resources. The ECP is a non-issue, just like the transformation problem. It can be worked around with market socialism, and then implemented using hyper computing.

I will read the pdf

I didn't make that assumption.

This probably has more to do with geography.

> Russian economists have now begun to discuss the law of value.
That's not "gave up on labour theory". And you don't really understand what you are talking about, if you actually think that law of value somehow becomes a non-factor in pre-Communist economies.

How does market help with it? It's the opposite.

Performance could only be judged by objective standards. Once you introduce some secondary characteristic - how much money was earned - that alone will determine the performance, it will inevitably become the main goal of the company (at the expense of everything else - including performance).

I.e. you get all the flaws of Capitalism. That said I would really prefer to see what exactly is meant under the "market socialism", since we might be talking about different things.