Think big. Not individual exceptions which you think need to fit into the model. Once you understand the big, work out how the relations fit in with the rest of the economy.
Art is bourgeois decadence.
art sucks. take psychedelics
This word has a different meaning to liberals. It's a moralistic term meaning "unjust" to them.
However to Marxists, it's not a moral issue–you did exploit the model. Meaning you used them in some way to make a commodity which you also sold. What they think of the arrangement is irrelevant. Yes you worked as well and sold your own labor on the market So you could also say you exploited yourself.
This. Marx was aiming to describe how an entire national and global economy works in practice. The existence of niche exceptions doesn't change anything. The economy doesn't run on the basis of fine art markets.
listen to music instead of indulging in art, especially nfts (which is one of the greatest scams of the 20s)
Art has existed before capitalism you tool
Also explain the existence of the /draw/ board
you exploited the customer :DDDDDDDDDDD
An art piece is unique and not a mass commodity. Therefore it isn't subject to the laws of value in the same way a mass produced item is.
How can a company lose money?
Let's say that you are right, so how do you value it? And how can i value my bad painting that i do as a hobby?
Anybody who has ever drawn anything is bourgeois and will be executed in the revolution.
>>1028807>Marx was aiming to describe how an entire national and global economy works in practice. The existence of niche exceptions doesn't change anything.
Hence "socially necessary" labor time being an average of how long the average worker in a given industry needs to produce a given commodity. Industries inevitably drive workers towards this average. Exceeding this average drives down the cost of production and creates a new average. Companies that fail to meet this average are driven from the markets.
Did Marx mention any government regulation vis a vis this labour? How does this interplay with the working of the market
Depends upon the value of the model's labor, and the value of your own labor as the painter.
How is this not a tautology?
It's use value, or exchange value?
there's no value. it's a gift with a price tag
Interesting so i use them to relax, and destress, so that is why i paint, i don't think i would get more than a few cents, if that. What value are my paintings?
My work is worth zero?
As a commodity, probably. NTA btw.
What would happen to art in a stateless society?
Assuming you used the model for a short time (say 5h) probably didn't exploit them. Rather you exploited workers in the overall economy by appropriating a rent.
Analogy: An oil.company pays its workers 90k per year to work full time (2000h) each to drill for oil; Given that average gdp per worker is like very roughly 30k per year Its obvious that some of the resource scarcity rent flow to the workers of that company.
A hobby anyone can indulge in, and share for free. In their free time, which should be plentiful, when everyone
is supposed to be participating in all of production and technological advancement benefits the worker, instead of padding profits.
The cream of the crop may scouted by the Ministry of Arts to produce cultural products full time. (paid by taxes, distributed for free)
Everyone would be doing, if not actually peer pressured to.
You will make art and you will like it!
What's the point of society making you do art? And what is art anyway will you have a 5 year art plan?
Why would there be a ministry of arts in a stateless society? Are you thinking of USSR as a model?
the blackmarket was unironically not so bad. It developed where the planned economy failed. It should be analyzed to improve that plan instead of demonize it.
Theres the theory that USSR fell apart cause they persecuted the black market too well and that balancing function was lost. I dont think its totally true, but I have no doubt that it has some merits.
You can explain how your story is not a tautology. How is it wrong?
Yes. Far too many anarchists get hung up on "stateless" and spend way too long to debating what "the state" even is.
But if you wanted an economy more advanced than dirt roads and subsistence farming, you need a regulatory body with authority to coordinate it. This is typically referred to as "The State". It cannot support itself, and needs labour to be put into it. This is often done through taxes. If you like pizza, pharmaceuticals, electricity, running water, no e.coli in your food and your house not
burning down, you want one of these.
Explain how it is a tautology first.
I don't think so, i can imagine a society with a small state, and still have what you mention, i can just invoke market providing those, as it is in current society.>>1029158
Definition of tautology
1a : needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word Rhetorical repetition, tautology ('always and for ever'), banal metaphor, and short paragraphs are part of the jargon
You say Marx explains what Marx explains, but not other things that he doesn't explain. Also Marx is true because Marx is true
*logic : a statement that is true by virtue of its logical form alone
I forgot to copy this
This is the level of debate here, none, just repeating the holly dogma
Dictionary entries are often given as examples of apparent circular definitions. Dictionary production, as a project in lexicography, should not be confused with a mathematical or logical activity, where giving a definition for a word is similar to providing an explanans for an explanandum in a context where practitioners are expected to use a deductive system. While, from a linguistic prescriptivist perspective, any dictionary might be believed to dictate correct usage, the linguistic descriptivist perspective recognizes that looking up words in dictionaries is not itself a rule-following practice independent of the give-and-take of using words in context. Thus, the example of a definition of oak given above (something that has catkins and grows from acorns) is not completely useless, even if "acorn" and "catkin" are defined in terms of "oak", in that it supplies additional concepts (e.g., the concept of catkin) in the definition.
While a dictionary might produce a "circle" among the terms, "oak", "catkin", and "acorn", each of these is used in different contexts(e.g., those related to plants, trees, flowers, and seeds) that generate ever-branching networks of usages. In another case it might produce a true circle. Taken as a whole, dictionaries are circular because each and every word is defined in terms of words that are also contained within the dictionary.A person could not pick up a (foreign) dictionary and make any sense of it unless they already know the meaning of a minimal subset of a number of words without having the need to refer to the dictionary for said meaning.
A circular definition crept into the classic definition of death that was once "the permanent cessation of the flow of vital bodily fluids", which raised the question "what makes a fluid vital?"
Definitions in lexicography can be broadly or narrowly circular. Narrowly circular definitions simply define one word in terms of another. A broadly circular definition has a larger circle of words. For example, the definition of the primary word is defined using two other words, which are defined with two other words, etc., creating a definitional chain. This can continue until the primary word is used to define one of the words used in the chain, closing the wide circle of terms. If all definitions rely on the definitions of other words in a very large, but finite chain, then all text-based definitions are ultimately circular. Extension (semantics) to the actual things that referring terms like nouns stand for, provided that agreement on reference is accomplished, is one method of breaking this circularity, but this is outside the capacity of a text-based definition.
What an exercise in futility. Maybe for your benefit try to use less hot air
>>1028795>selling art>as a commodity
Bourgeois regardless of exploitation.
Can i just take a picasso painting home?
Giving dictionary definitions =/= explaining how it’s a tautology. Unless you’re implying all averages are tautology on their face.
Bellow the dictionary definition, i gave you my explanation
No you didn’t.
You just cited Merriam-Webster and moved on.
No, take a closer look. >>1029170
Maybe you don't see, so let me quote myself: You say Marx explains what Marx explains, but not other things that he doesn't explain. Also Marx is true because Marx is true
>>1029416>you say strawman
Nah, using averages is not a tautology, fam.
Average of what?
You are arguing over semantics. If you are so triggered by the word value call it "X" instead.
Average of how long the average worker in a given industry needs to produce a given commodity
What semantics. Can you not deflect, average of what?
Here you go - tautology.
How? Because it’s an average? lol
average what of what? what?
No, you don't get it. That's ok
No, because you can’t explain it probably because you don’t know.
What is this supposed to mean?
all definitions are tautological you are arguing about the definition of "area" so you don't have to talk about "length" and "width"
I don't disagree, but where does your definition come from?
its basic economics. value comes from nature and work. the economy is a closed system limited by the amount of natural resources, the number of humans, and how long they can work. you can redo the equations to be a proportion of calories or joules captured by society as a whole divided by the number of people over a given period of time, or convert it to "man hours" or "work days".
The definition comes from creating a framework to explain empirical facts.
This is how all scientific theories are developed.
say on average it takes a day to make a painting, and all the supplies that go into it like paint canvas easel etc take a day all together to make, and over your career you make a thousand paintings.
each painting takes 0.1 paints 1.0 canvases and 0.001 easels. the cost of paints canvases and easels is 1000 man hours. men take an average of 2000 calories a day. 2000 calories is approx 1500 grams of rice. rice takes 1 man hour per gram to produce.
how many grams of rice on average does each painting cost society to make?
if society was not producing rice to feed this artist, what else could have been produced? is the organization of society optimal or are people wasting time producing things that are a detriment to it?
>>1029097>i use them to relax, and destress, so that is why i paint
so you get your use value directly by the activity of painting, you could burn the result after you'd still have got your main use value out of it.
> i don't think i would get more than a few cents, if that
thats the exchange value, ie what the average human being is ready to pay for this type of product (pretty painted thing to look at/hang on walls). Note for example if a prominent art gallery exposed it, of it was associated with a big name, suddenly the exchange value would skyrocket and it would basically become an unique speculative asset rather than a commodity (unique art piece rather than generic art product like a poster
but art is a pretty bad example to talk value
Maybe, i guess i was more convinced my math explanation of area that also gave me a formula to test if it represents reality correctly
The law of value only applies to mass reproducible goods like coats or wheat, but not to paintings, which are usually unique, i.e. have a supply of 1.
The price of a painting, unlike the price of watches, linen or iron, does NOT fluctuate around the value of the commodity in question (Smith called it the natural price for a reason), but is 100% dependent on the demand in the market at a given time in a given place.
How many dozens of watches, yards of linen or tons of iron you get for your painting, a relation usually expressed in money, depends on the use value it possesses for the parties present in the market.
The law of value does not apply since the LTV does not seek to explain the market for fine art, but the general structure of capitalist markets, in which the fine art sector is quite insignificant.
tl;dr The law of value does not aplly.
How does this theory determine real estate and land value?
the easiest way to see it is wholesale vs retail or bulk vs individual
the difference is cost is labor, so the difference in price is labor, because all else being equal there is no other place for profit margins to come from
In political economy, including physiocracy, classical economics, Georgism, and other schools of economic thought, land is recognized as an inelastic factor of production. Land, in this sense, means exclusive access rights to any natural opportunity. Rent is the share paid to freeholders for allowing production on the land they control.As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when land was in common, cost the labourer only the trouble of gathering them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed upon them. He must then pay for the licence to gather them; and must give up to the landlord a portion of what his labour either collects or produces. This portion, or, what comes to the same thing, the price of this portion, constitutes the rent of land ….
— Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations
So how do you do it?
I am still puzzled on how to determine land&real estate value. Do you have any real life examples
>the relative profitability of capital investments in agriculture is affected by the productivity, fertility, and location of farmland, as well as by capital expenditure on land improvements.
>commerce has to adapt to physical factors such as climate, altitude and soil quality, the relative inelasticity of agricultural supply, and the impact of bad harvests on international prices for farm products.Eventually, however, the production of farm products is completely reorganized according to the exchange-value of farm output – foodstuffs are then produced mainly according to their expected trading value in the market (this is not always completely true, e.g. because it may be feasible to cultivate only a limited variety of crops, or run a limited variety of cattle on particular lands, or because there is no perfect knowledge about what the market will do in the future, if there is great price volatility, climate uncertainty etc.).
>According to Marx, the operation of the law of value and the formation of prices of production was modified in capitalist agriculture, because prices for farm output were co-determined by land yields and land ownership-rents quite independently of labor-productivity. For example, a poor harvest in a major agricultural region due to adverse weather conditions, or the monopolization of the supply of farmland, could have a big effect on world market prices for farm products. Marx extends his theory of agricultural rents to building rents and mine rents, and considers the effect of rent income on land prices.
> earnings from farm work can be affected by many different variables, even at a highly abstract level of analysis. However the theory became very important to neo-Marxists such as Ernest Mandel and Cyrus Bina who interpreted late capitalism as a form of increasingly parasitic rentier capitalism in which surplus profits are obtained by capitalists from monopolising the access to resources, assets and technologies under conditions of imperfect competition. Marxist writers such as Cyrus Bina have extended the concept of rents to oil rents.
im not sure land is considered to have value because it is not a commodity and its price is pretty arbitrary because it is a natural monopoly
it also depends what you mean by real estate because housing and capital are commodities and whether you mean value or cost or price or profit or rent
it doesn't make sense to ask how many man hours one acre of afield costs but it does make sense to ask the difference in production capabilities between two fields, such as a north or south facing one to determine their rent which would determine relative price or profit and if you are talking about housing prices there is the commodity cost and also a factor determined by monopoly rent
<3.4 Example 1: Surplus Profit in Agriculture without Landed
>Suppose there are 3 plots of land with varying quality, each owned by a different capitalistfarmer. The worst plot of land produces 100 kgs of the agricultural commodity (wheat, say); the medium plot of land produces 120 kgs/acre; and the high quality land produces 150 kgs/acre. All plots of land have the same cost of production: constant capital of 500 and variable capital of 500. Suppose the rate of exploitation is 100% so that the amount of surplus value generated on each plot of land is 500. Suppose the economy-wide average rate of profit is 10%.
>We would like to compute the magnitudes of surplus profit on each plot of land. To do so, we need to calculate the market price of wheat. We know that the price will be such as to ensure that all the surplus value generated in agriculture remains in agriculture. This can be ensured if the market price of wheat is equal to its value. Now, the total value generated in agriculture is 4500 and the total amount of wheat produced is 370. Hence the price of wheat which would ensure that all the value generated in agriculture is retained in agriculture is given by 12.162 = (4500/370).
>With this information on the price of the agricultural commodity, we can calculate the total profit generated on the worst plot of land as 216.22 = ((12.162 ∗ 100) − 1000). Since the economy-wide average rate of profit is 10%, the surplus profit on the worst plot of land becomes 116.22 = (216.22 − 1000 ∗ 0.1). In a similar manner, the total profit on the medium quality plot of land is given by 459.46 = ((12.162 ∗ 120)−1000), so that the surplus profit on the medium quality plot of land is 359.46 = (459.46 − 1000 ∗ 0.1). Using the same logic, we see that the total profit on the high quality plot of land is 824.32 = ((12.162 ∗ 150) − 1000), so that the surplus profit on that plot is 724.32 = (824.32 − 1000 ∗ 0.1).
<4.2 Application-I: Real Estate Prices
>Can we explain the price of real estate using Marx’s theory of ground-rent? By real estate, I refer to commercial or residential buildings. Since buildings are constructed on pieces of land, the price of the real estate comes from two sources: (a) price of the building, and (b) price of the land on which the building is constructed. Of course, the two prices are determined by very different principles. Since the building is a commodity, its price is determined like any other commodity, i.e. in the long run, the price of the building is its price of production. On the other hand, the price of the land, which is a non-produced resource (and not a commodity), is the capitalized value of the rent income entailed by ownership of the land.14
>Thus, the price of real estate is the sum of the price of the building (the commodity) and the price of the land (the non-produced resource). Hence real estate prices can increase if either of the two terms in the sum increase. If we take a long run perspective, then the price of the building (the commodity) is either going to be stable or fall, the latter coming from technological change and the former arising when there is no technological change. On the other hand, there is no such principle determining or limiting the price of the land. One can conclude that the long run increase in real estate prices comes largely from the increases in the price of land. But why does the price of land increase in the long run?
>Capitalist development rests on the primitive accumulation of capital. The population uprooted from agricultural production in rural areas gradually move to urban areas, at different speeds across different countries, in search of livelihood in the form of wage-labour. This increases the demand for housing, and by implication, the demand for land on which houses could be constructed. As population pressures increase and transportation costs decline, the size of urban centers of industrial production increases. Hence, more and more land is used for construction of residential and commercial buildings. In an approximate sense, this process of urban expansion is like the expansion of agricultural production from the best to worse quality plots of land. While in the case of agriculture, ‘quality’ refers to fertility of the soil, in the context of urban expansion, ‘quality’ refers to locational advantages. Locational advantage is, in turn, determined by many factors like public infrastructure, the density of networks of firms, production hubs, transportation networks, educational and health facilities, etc. The important implication is that as demand for housing increases, increasingly worse quality land is used for construction, which increases the differential rent earned by infra marginal, i.e. better than the worst, plots of land, just as in the case of agriculture
>Landed property is based on the monopoly by certain persons over definite portions of the globe, as exclusive spheres of their private will to the exclusion of all others. With this in mind, the problem is to ascertain the economic value, that is, the realisation of this monopoly on the basis of capitalist production. With the legal power of these persons to use or misuse certain portions of the globe, nothing is decided. The use of this power depends wholly upon economic conditions, which are independent of their will. The legal view itself only means that the landowner can do with the land what every owner of commodities can do with his commodities.
>The actual tillers of the soil are wage labourers employed by a capitalist, the capitalist farmer who is engaged in agriculture merely as a particular field of exploitation for capital, as investment for his capital in a particular sphere of production. This capitalist farmer pays the landowner, the owner of the land exploited by him, a sum of money at definite periods fixed by contract, for instance, annually (just as the borrower of money-capital pays a fixed interest), for the right to invest his capital in this specific sphere of production. This sum of money is called ground-rent, no matter whether it is paid for agricultural land, building lots, mines, fishing grounds, or forests, etc. It is paid for the entire time for which the landowner has contracted to rent his land to the capitalist farmer. Ground-rent, therefore, is here that form in which property in land is realised economically, that is, produces value.
>Capital may be fixed in the land, incorporated in it either in a transitory manner, as through improvements of a chemical nature, fertilisation, etc., or more permanently, as in drainage canals, irrigation works, leveling, farm buildings, etc. Elsewhere I have called the capital thus applied to land la terre-capital. It belongs to the category of fixed capital. The interest on capital incorporated in the land and the improvements thus made in it as an instrument of production can constitute a part of the rent paid by the capitalist farmer to the landowner,  but it does not constitute the actual ground-rent, which is paid for the use of the land as such — be it in a natural or cultivated state.
>These investments, like cultivation proper in general, improve the land, increase its output, and transform the land from mere material into land-capital when the cultivation is carried on more or less rationally. A cultivated field is worth more than an uncultivated one of the same natural quality. The more permanent fixed capital investments, which are incorporated in the soil and used up in a longer period of time, are also in the main, and in some spheres often exclusively, made by the capitalist farmer. But as soon as the time stipulated by contract has expired — and this is one of the reasons why with the development of capitalist production the landowners seek to shorten the contract period as much as possible — the improvements incorporated in the soil become the property of the landowner as an inseparable feature of the substance, the land. In the new contract made by the landowner he adds the interest for capital incorporated in the land to the ground-rent itself. And he does this whether he now leases the land to the capitalist farmer who made these improvements or to some other farmer. His rent is thus inflated; and should he wish to sell his land (we shall see immediately how its price is determined), its value is now higher. He sells not merely the land but the improved land, the capital incorporated in the land for which he paid nothing. Quite aside from the movements of ground-rent itself, here lies one of the secrets of the increasing enrichment of landowners, the continuous inflation of their rents, and the constantly growing money-value of their estates along with progress in economic development.
>This illustration of ownership is important. In the first place, it clearly shows the difference between actual ground-rent and interest on fixed capital incorporated in the land, which may constitute an addition to ground-rent. Interest on buildings, like that on capital incorporated in the land by the tenant in agriculture, falls into the hands of the industrial capitalist, the building speculator, or the tenant, so long as the lease lasts, and has in itself nothing to do with ground-rent, which must be paid on stated dates annually for the use of the land. Secondly, it shows that capital incorporated in the land by others ultimately passes into the hands of the landlord together with the land, and that the interest for it inflates his rent.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch37.htm
This is not capitalist commodity production, this is pre-capitalist artisanal production. Both the painter and the model are free laborers in your hypothetical example. It's an exceedingly rare arrangement these days, and that's why basically nobody bothers to form theory about it. Most people just take a picture and print it out, you can even get a professional print-out on thick canvas that is pulled over a wooden frame that looks almost like a real painting for less than 1/50th of the price. That's where commodity production has gone, models and painters are hired as wage workers to create decorative motives.
I guess people who can afford to buy that painting in your hypothetical for 10k might be involved in the exploitation of labor.
>>1028843>some schizo in the revisionist era of the USSR
get dabbed on, /draw/chads stay winning
>>1029447>>1029448>all definitions are tautological
You talk about tautologies as if they were bad things. Meanwhile, any theory is sound if and only if every theorm in it is a tautology, and complete if and only if every derivable tautology is theorem.
Read Marx retard. Literally mentioned use value when you modify or work in raw materials. And again your work does not exist in the void. The model would see the industry average wage and demand as such. Where the hell do you keep coming up with these dumb childish hypotheticals?
Like it’s always mudpies and artwork with you guys.
There are several things to consider:
1) It is true that the painting couldn't have been made without the model's service. However the issue lies in the fact that the model did not physically work on the painting. It's like a blurred line between intellectual property and labor. In a sense, the model allowed the artist to use the model's image which resembles intellectual property whilst simultaneously the image could not be used by the painter without the model's physical presence (ie. posing) which resembles labor.
2) Speaking of the model's labor, how do we determine how many hours are necessary for the model to work in order for a painting to be finished? It's a case-by-case basis depending on the speed of the artist and the complexity of the painting.
3) The model is very likely self-employed and can ask to be paid hypothetically any amount independent of the necessary labor time. It is possible for the model to be overpaid even, to take home more than the artist.
4) The painting as a commodity's price can (and most of the time is) be totally disassociated from the labor put into it + the costs. The artist could be a van Gogh struggling to make ends meet while working long hours or a Roy Lichtenstein getting rich by tracing comic book panels. It's like fictious capital, the surplus value is muddied by human factors such as speculation to the point where one may legitimately ask if there is even an observable surplus value.
The economic relationship is simply unclear. If I say followed an ethical code based on the LTV, it would not be clear to me how to proceed as both artist and model.>>1029125
What do you mean by appropriating rent? Also the analogy you use is one akin to unproductive labor ie. workers being subsidized beyond their productive capacity unless I'm misunderstanding.
Of course, abosultely nobody in this long thread has actually given the actual answer that is in Capital
. All of you, read the fucking book!
Exploitation, according to Marx, is not
, I repeat not
the difference between what a worker gets paid and the value of the commodities that said worker produces. Exploitation is a bourgeois entity requiring its workers to work for a longer time frame than the total socially-necessary labor-time contained within their aggregate means of subsistence. Said a simpler and less accurate way, exploitation is making a person work longer hours than is required to make the things that they need in order to keep working. This number constantly changes due to a myraid of factors relative to the time and place where the labor is occuring.
So, we cannot know if the scenario in the OP is exploitation from what we are given, becasue we have no idea what it costs to keep art models working wherever and whenever it is that the art model in the scenario works.
The diagram is from here, I have no clue what the article entails because I took the diagram from Google.>Is "necessary value" supposed to be variable capital, or is it supposed to be socially necessary labor time?
It's obviously referring to wages.>What does "Labor-power → Labor →Exchange value" mean?
Labor power = the capacity to work
Labor = the actual work
Exchange value = 20 yards of linen meme
>>1029899>The diagram is from here, I have no clue what the article entails because I took the diagram from Google.
My god, that article… The author appears to be trying to be helpful but, as he says:<I likely have Aspergers>It's obviously referring to wages.
That should not be obvious at all. In fact, that would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. How can the value of the commodity that the worker produces pay for his labor-power out of itself? It has cause and effect upside-down. From reading some of the article, I have been able to deduce that when he says "necessary value" what he means is "variable capital,' but of course variable capital does not come out of the value of the commodity that the workers produce but rather out of money capital which exists prior to the productive process. It's like the author tried to explain the structure of the marxian Labor Theory of Value in a way that is completely divorced from the money capital and productive capital cycles. It's mind-bendingly bizarre.>Labor power = the capacity to work>Labor = the actual work>Exchange value = 20 yards of linen meme
I know what the terms mean. What I don't know is how one goes to the other and then goes to the other. If he were to take "labor" out of the equation it would make more sense, because labor is a physical reality, and it produces physical things, ie. use-values. Socially necesssary labor time (which is "Value" itself) gets crystalized in a commodity as exchange value. The key to the marxian theory of value–and what differentiates it from the classical Labor Theory of Value–is the concept of labor-power. Labor-power is the like quality of commodities that ultimately allows them to relate quantifiably to one another in the market and thus forms the basis of Value. Yeah, I know that doesn't make a lot of sense to someone who hasn't read the book, but I honestly have no idea how else to say it. This shit is so fucking difficult to explain in plain English.
>>1029919>If he were to take "labor" out of the equation it would make more sense, because labor is a physical reality, and it produces physical things, ie. use-values. Socially necesssary labor time (which is "Value" itself) gets crystalized in a commodity as exchange value.
Wait, was the author using the word "labor" to mean "socially necessary labor time?" That might make some sense.
Sorry let me repeat the question how is land and real estate valued in REAL WORLD?
No, you showed me a math definition with a testable formula that i can apply in real world, why don't you have that?
How do you determine which labour is socially necessary, and how much of it is it?
>>1029170>a tautology is a tautology
What a fucking retard you are lmao.
I am enjoying your display of stupidity. Also enjoying how you haven't explained how SNLT is tautological. It is by definition not a tautology so I will enjoy you doubling down trying to explain how it is. >>1030011
Basically all labor that produces a certain commodity goes into the calculation of what becomes the average. It is not a mystical situation. Try to imagine you owning a factory making a common commodity, say forks. Write down what are your costs, and try to figure out why you can't simply raise or lower your prices without hurting your bottom line. Where does this "natural price" for your commodity come from? It comes from the cost of paying your employees and material. The material you buy is also subject to the same idea. Its cost is profit + employee salaries + cost of material. The material itself is free, nature gives it to us without charging money. It takes labor to extract and transform it to your purpose or the the purpose of your suppliers. As you can see, labor is the ultimate determinator of the "natural price" of something.
>>1029919>How can the value of the commodity that the worker produces pay for his labor-power out of itself?
Well let's say exchange value (of the commodity) = 100 apples. The worker receives 5 apples as a wage. For every produced commodity the owner receives 95 apples. That's surplus value.
It's theft and exploitation.
Under socialism if you take a picture of someone to sell it off without informing them or giving them the proceeds you will be put to death.
Cope, words dont have concrete meaning.
Based. Someone make this a banner.
Seethe harder post-modernist.
You will never be a Marxist.
Bruh…. their answer is comaptible with marxism. The analysis stops in the analytic framework, but that is enough for this purpose because that is what the other person is pre-supposing. If you extend it with marxism, you realize that definitions cannot exist solely in the text. "Concrete" definitions only make sense in a social dynamic context and in relation to other things including society itself. It is a stand alone complex. The idea that definitions can exist by themselves contradicts the findings of marxism. There are no definitions that exist by themselves.
But you dont even need marxism. This logico-positivist idea was destroyed by logico-positivists THEMSELVES as absolute nonsense.
The subjects are not doing labor. The labor being done is the journalist recording and reporting moments and behaviors.
I just realized you guys were talking about dictionary definitions I retract my case I read >>1030134
out of context.
Money is the problem here
Art is bourgeois idealism
All popular art is based on money
>>1030131>intellectual property would exist under socialism
It's the time
that's scocially necessary. Across the system (socially), it takes, as a mean average, x man hours to produce a particular type of commodity. A number of factors can affect how many man hours it takes on average, automation being the big one, but other things like artificial limitations on production also affect it.
Its imprtant to keep models of things within the parameters they are meant to fit.
The majority of the economy is bulk goods that require extraction, processing, sale, and then replacement upon consumption. This is where the law of value and labor exploitation applies.
A great many things fall outside this modelb but because it is the core of the economy, other sections of the economy are bound to follow in its footsteps. Artists work in money because they have to buy commodities to continue their own existence.
Artists nor models, do not produce things for
subsistence nor they somehow relatively participate in manufacturing of some product for life support. So they do not get exploited.
What is required to keep an art model working is easy to find, it is just average. This is not the problem, but your thinking is wrong..
I hire you for 1 hour/month for doing something stupid and irrelevant and you can't demand me to pay for all your monthly food. It is not possible.
This makes no sense, but go on what time is socially necessary
I already explained what time in another post which you convenintly ignored. ALL time that goes into producing all commodities of a certain type. What exactly don't you get?
Ok uygha since you're retarded I'll spell it out.
Take 30 million chairs produced in a certain market. It takes from 3 hours to 40 hours to produce 1 chair for a specific market segment from material extraction (amortized) all the way to assembly and sale.
The average time it takes to produce one would be calculated by adding all the hours taken to produce the entire pipeline from material extraction to sale of all sold chairs, divided by the quantity of sold chairs.
This average would be the socially necessary labor time. It isnt a specific producer's necessary labor time, it is society's.
Do you get it now, sweety?
No, why would we need 40M chairs?
In real world land isn't free. How do the capitalist value it?
>>1031014>what capitalists make up in their heads is "the real world" to him
Land is literally free bruh, like uyghur just go in there with your comrades and take it who's gonna stop you
you can't "own" land
The people will just take that shit and throw the "owners" into a ditch and keep farming it
look at this spooked white dude
What wise words, i guess i need someone like you to show me the way. Can you move to china and claim land and show us the way
No because I don't have more men than the PLA.
You can literally just throw out the capitalists if you're stronger than them and do whatever you want with the land, you know? They did it when they overthrew the workers' state in Germany.
it's almost as if….politics is about power and …power is bout violence….
LTV does not apply in this case. Anyone who tries arguing with OP is a dumbass
>>1031014>real world land
Are you talking about housing or productive land or unimproved land?
what do you mean by "land" and "real estate"? >How do the capitalist value it?
Land does not have value, do you mean how are prices determined? Prices are a combination of monopoly rent and capital investment in the land as described in the quoted posts.
I did. Read the rest of the post.<Across the system (socially), it takes, as a mean average, x man hours to produce a particular type of commodity. A number of factors can affect how many man hours it takes on average, automation being the big one, but other things like artificial limitations on production also affect it.
land is free,you just get removed by a military or the police if you don't pay hush money to the guy that "owns" it.
I still don't understand what your point is. You say exploitation is working longer hours than necessary? And what is the purpose of working longer hours than is necessary?
To make a profit?
And how is that profit obtained; through what mechanism? Correct me if I'm wrong but what you're suggesting sounds like the "make a mudpie for a thousand hours" meme.
This is more of an advanced topic. Try understanding the basics first. Then research about the marxist understanding of rent. You'll be confused if you don't understand SNLT and other basic concepts.
Ah, I see where the issue is. The infographics here >>1032272
give the basic idea, but allow me to try to explain it. Wages fluctuate around the value (the socially necessary labor time) needed to create the means of subsistence for a given type of labor in a given place. Employers need to pay enough–and just enough–that there will be someone doing the labor that they need to be done tomorrow. That line is what the value of wages fluctuates around. Employees will not–or can not–work when their wages fall below that threshold for very long, and new employee will not take the job if it does not meet their needs. Likewise, employers are compelled by the need to compete with other capitalists in the market to keep wages as low as is sustainable. So you have that equalizing effect caused by those opposing interests that keep wages right around that equilibrium, which Marx calls the value of the means of subsistence. The value of the means of subsistence is the aggregate value (socially necessary labor time) contained in all of the commodities that compose the means of subsistence (what those exact commodities are changes from place to place and from time to time). Thus, the value of the labor-power that the employee sells to his employer is the same as the value of those commodities that compose the means of subsistence. The time contained in the value of labor-power = the time contained in the value of the means of subsistence.
During the productive process wherein the employee makes some new commodity using the equipment, resources, place of labor, etc. (the "means of production," but that's another story), the value of the labor-power that the employees provide gets transferred
to the value of the commodities that they create. So, the value of the commodities that the employees create by their labor contain both the value of their own labor-power and the value of the means of production that they used to create them. Now, if you follow all that, you will notice that the value that the empoyer spent on wages and on the means of production are exactly equal
to the value of the commodities that got produced. There's not profit there at all!
So, where does profit come from? Profit comes into existence by one simple trick. The employer has his means of production and his employees on hand. What if he could make the employees work for a longer time than corresponds to the value in their means of subsistence? Why, they would make even more commodities than they were making before, and, because of the equalizing effect that the value of the means of subsistence has on wages, the employer would not have to pay them one red cent more! With the new, longer work day, the employees now put not only the value of the means of subsistence into all of the commodities that they make, but they also put the value of their own unpaid labor-power (that time that they work in excess of the socially necessary labor time contained in the value of their means of subsistence) into the commodities as well! Now, the value of the sum total of the commodities produced greater than the value of the commodities produced before both absolutely and relatively. The additional value that has thus been added to the commodities is referred to as surplus-value. The surplus-value is a part of the exchange value of the resulting commodities and gets realized as profit when the employer sells them.
Man, I hope that makes sense, because it is not easy to explain.
I wish that I could edit these things. There are a couple grammatical errors in the post, and it is difficult enough to understand without them.
Ah, I see where the issue is. The infographics here >>1032272
give the basic idea, but allow me to try to explain it. Wages fluctuate around the value (the socially necessary labor time) needed to create the means of subsistence for a given type of labor in a given place. Employers need to pay enough–and just enough–that there will be someone doing the labor that they will need to have done tomorrow. That point is what the value of wages fluctuates around. Employees will not–or can not–work when their wages fall below that threshold for very long, and new employees will not take the job if it does not meet their needs. Likewise, employers are compelled by the need to compete with other capitalists in the market to keep wages as low as can be sustained. So, you have that equalizing effect caused by those opposing interests that keep wages right around that equilibrium, which Marx calls "the value of the means of subsistence." The value of the means of subsistence is the aggregate value (socially necessary labor time) contained in all of the commodities that compose the means of subsistence (what those exact commodities are changes from place to place and from time to time). Thus, the value of the labor-power that the employee sells to his employer is the same as the value of those commodities that compose the means of subsistence. The time contained in the value of labor-power equals–or at least is very close to–the time contained in the value of the means of subsistence.
During the productive process wherein the employee makes some new commodity using the equipment, resources, place of labor, etc. (altogether called the "means of production," but that's another story), the value of the labor-power that the employees provide gets transferred to the value of the commodities that they create. So, the value of the commodities that the employees create by their labor contains both the value of their own labor-power and the value of the means of production that they used to create them. Now, if you follow all that, you will notice that the value that the empoyer spent on wages and on the means of production is exactly equal to the value of the commodities that got produced. There is not profit there at all!
So, where does profit come from? Profit comes into existence by way of one simple trick. The employer has his means of production and his employees on hand. What if he could make the employees work for a longer period of time than corresponds to the value in their means of subsistence? Why, they would make even more commodities than they were making before, and, because of the equalizing effect that the value of the means of subsistence has on wages, the employer would not have to pay them one red cent more! With the new, longer work day, the employees now put not only the value of the means of subsistence into all of the commodities that they make, but they also put the value of their own unpaid labor-power (that time that they work in excess of the socially necessary labor time contained in the value of their means of subsistence) into the commodities as well! Now, the value of the sum total of the commodities produced is greater than the value of the commodities that had been produced before both absolutely and relatively. The additional value that has thus been added to the commodities is referred to as "surplus-value." The surplus-value is a part of the exchange value of the resulting commodities and gets realized as profit when the employer sells those commodities.
Man, I hope that makes sense, because it is not easy to explain.
Shameless bump for my forgotten effort post.
OP here, bumping so I can respond later have to hit the hay now
Dude, shut the fuck up
>>1032475>which Marx calls "the value of the means of subsistence."
How is this different to the iron law of wages that Marx criticises in CotGP?
I vaguely remember Marx being more critical than the wiki entry seems to implyhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_wages
>>1032475>Man, I hope that makes sense,
It did btw. Good post.
>>1028813>Art has existed before capitalism
No it didn't, if we use a different definition of art for bourgeois art and pre capitalist art .
Well, whatever argument you make you're wrong because I'll invent new definitions of art that are mutually exclusive. Your arguments are debunked preemptively.
The big difference–and its one that is frequently missed–is that the means of subsistence, despite its frankly inadequate name, do not refer to just the bare minimum of what it takes to keep workers alive and working. The means of subsistece includes ALL of the things that are necessary to make labor of a given type reappear in the same place tomorrow, not just bread, water, and a place to sleep. Today, it is much more obvious than it was in Lassalle's day that workers cannot work on bread alone. They need cars (or they need rent for city apartments). They need education and training. They need cable internet so that they will not go completely bonkers between their shifts. They need booze and weed to allow them to forget the misery of their drudgery. They need religious institutions to tell them that all this bullshit isn't pointless. They need oil for their cars, for their plastics, for their heaters, for their electricity. All of that and more goes into the means of subsistance. Furthermore, the means of subsistence vary in substance from place to place and from time to time for numerous reasons–oil production, for example, is a big one these days. It's a similare concept to the iron law of wages, but it encompases far more and more accurately describes how more complex labor gets replaced.
Nice answer, thanks.
On the topic of higher wages for skilled laborers,
I guess in part being able to give your kids the education necessary to give them the access to the job you have is part of this "value of subsistence" which is partly responsible for the reproduction of labor. But there's also mechanisms of supply scarcity with highly skilled laborers too which contribute to higher salaries for skilled laborers.
If you mean like in cases such as the medical profession where nurses in particular are difficult to replace and impossible to automate, that is absolutely true. Also, to again use the example of nurses, workers who are exploited at an unusually high rate–like nurses are–require more total and more expensive commodities to keep them working, just because they burn out so much faster that they need serious recouperation between their shifts and generally less stress in their home lives. Marx noted that any increase in the rate of exploitation corresponds with an increase in the total value of the means of subsistence, but it is not an equal or even a consistent formula.
However, in more strictly capitalist enterprises, labor that becomes too highly-skilled to efectively exploit tends to be eliminated entirely. Their jobs just stop existing, their function in society lost completely (sayonara, travel agents!). Often, their function will be replaced by either automation or by simplifying the job enough that less skilled workers can do it, but that usually occurs after the original highly-skilled jobs have already been eliminated. The automotive industry is a good example of that effect.
Interesting. I was thinking of doctors and software engineers in the US (because elsewhere they are not even paid well). But yeah, I see how what you're saying applies.
So wages are stagnating but people are burning out more and more.
Software engineers are in the enviable position of being the people who create the autotmation that eliminates other jobs. Companies need them to, ironically enough, slash their own overhead. Also, in the United States, the West Coast tech giants like to keep the people that they do hire to those positions loyal.
In contrast, look at how the entertainment industry pays software engineers. Remember, these are guys with advanced degrees living in San Francisco and Seattle.https://www.indeed.com/jobs?q=Video+Game+Software+Engineer&redirected=1
>>1036465>>1036465>Software engineers are in the enviable position of being the people who create the autotmation that eliminates other jobs.
Also they (we) are creators of rentable virtual/digital property.
The entertainment industry creates less rentable property and more expiring commodities (although with long shelf life games like GTA V and LoL etc, that's changing).
Personally, I took a huge paycut to not work in the US and moved to Europe where salaries are 30-50% of US salaries for similar software jobs, sometimes for the same companies.
Unique IPs: 51