>>2581998marx wants to overcome the concept of value by overcoming the abstraction of labour in exchange (e.g. via central planning). thats why he doesnt consider labour certificates "money", and so we can call them coupons. of course, you would call it slavery to be paid a salary in coupons, but in communism, this is "freedom", apparently. marx also states directly that labour must be exploited by the state in the form of surplus labour and taxation to expand production. thus, i call marx's communism "state capitalism".
>>2582003price = exchange-value = SNLT
an easy marxist formula. lets read this:
<the sum of the prices of production of all commodities produced in society — the totality of all branches of production — is equal to the sum of their values.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch09.htmi.e. total price = total value
this is why as marx says, whatever is sold above value must be balanced by what is sold below. when considered totally of capital composition therefore, the rate of surplus value is able to be determined so as to measure the value of commodities:
<C = c + v + sas regards your elevator analogy, its still true that the average is affected by varying quantities, so the rate of profit still equalises at the division of its total sum. but i will ask you - if 5 people are weighed, and the total is 500 kilograms, what is the average weight of the persons? what is true is that a larger sample size creates better results, but averages exist nonetheless.
so, by reading marx's words directly (i.e. total price = total value), have you accepted that the ratio of values in exchange are measured by SNLT in prices, and that this is how marx intended himself to be interpreted? if not, may you explain why? thanks. 🙂