/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>unfounded axioms, concepts and claims
why dont you provide a single example yourself?

>>2416410
Cockshott has several video essays on how asinine supply and demand are and how the classicals AND Marx both essentially agreed that price formation mainly came from cost of production, particularly the cost of labor, and that supply and demand curves were introduced by Marshall to deliberately obfuscate this fact by pretending that prices are merely the interplay of market factors. But one question you can ask is why does commodity A have an equilibrium price X and commodity B have an equilibrium price Y? Once supply and demand are in equilibrium they cease to explain anything. the equilibrium price formation of the commodity must be explained not by after-production factors in the market but by the factors of the production of the commodity itself.

If commodity X is made out of raw materials Y and Z, then the socially necessary labor time required to acquire, refine, and assemble those raw materials into commodity X must explain its equilibrium price, and supply and demand can only explain temporary deviations or fluctuations around that labor price.

But people want to get hung up on semantics and ignore the fact that the economy simply could not functino without labor and laboring masses hold massive leverage over the economy if they would only organize and pursue their political interests collectively rather than individually.

People also want to divide the laboring masses on the issue of age, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, language, nationality, "world" (1st 2nd 3rd), and silly things like whether you can save money or not by depriving yourself of certain needs or wants.

The most central modern attack point is equilibrium theory in the first place and the (non-)existence of tâtonnement for prices for example but the traditional argumations are usually histographic and center on the classically Marxist concept of the emergence of capitalist history.

>>2416425
>>2416430
nvm, beat me to it

>>2416430
emergence of the capitalist system*

>>2416421
Because this is a Marxist forum so I can assume the posters here already know it. What I need is explaining this effectively to the average person.

>>2416430
marx believed in equilibrium theory, attested from his reference to thomas tooke's "history of prices". would you say that he is in error for following these classical presuppositions?
>>2416425
>Cockshott has several video essays on how asinine supply and demand are
not at all; he still submits to the fact that market prices are determined by supply and demand, the same as marx.
>the classicals AND Marx both essentially agreed that price formation mainly came from cost of production
to smith, effectual demand is what determines the price, the same as keynes.
the "natural price" can only be achieved where the supply of goods meets the rate of effectual demand. any imbalance causes price fluctuation from the natural rate set by costs of production. smith believed that as per market activity, the stability of a natural price only realised itself over a certain period of time.
>pretending that prices are merely the interplay of market factors.
where do prices exist outside of markets?

>>2416477
>not at all; he still submits to the fact that market prices are determined by supply and demand, the same as marx.

the market price, not the equilibrium price. all market price says is how much deviation there is from the equilibrium price, which is determined by cost of production, which is determined by living and past labor.

>>2416477
watch the vid btw

>>2416467
so you have no articulable disagreement?

Franklin, Smith, Ricardo, Marx = emphasized labor and showed that market forces are secondary effects
post-classicals, anti-marxis = try to hide or downplay labor and emphasized market forces as dominant

>>2416480
>the market price, not the equilibrium price
the equilibrium price is a balance of supply and demand
>which is determined by cost of production
only where there is effective demand. this is the point. an equilibrium price does not precede the market.
>>2416486
economic value is a market concept

>>2416488
>the equilibrium price is a balance of supply and demand
yes and different commodities have different equilibrium prices, so that cannot be explained by supply and demand (post-production factors on the market) alone, but by factors inherent in the commodity's production, namely the labor time required for both the final commodity as well as the labor times required for the commodities contributing to the final commodity. Using supply and demand alone to explain price is like geocentric astronomy.

>>2416488
let us say commodity A has an equilibrium price of 3 dollars and commodity B has an equilibrium price of 5 dollars. In both cases, supply and demand are in equilibrium, so neither supply nor demand nor their interplay can explain in this case why commodity B is 2 dollars more expensive than commodity A. Since supply and demand represent factors outside of the commodity's production and they are in this case in equilibrium we have to look at factors within the commodity's production for an explanation. What immediately faces us is that commodities are assembled through labor processes, but they are also made out of other commodities which were themselves either assembled through labor processes, or, in the case of raw materials, gotten from the environment through labor processes. In all cases the average labor time required becomes essential to explaining prices differences, which Marx and the classicals both noticed and the post-classicals and anti-marxists try to obfuscate or bury.

>>2416505
seek help

>>2416493
>yes and different commodities have different equilibrium prices, so that cannot be explained by supply and demand
it is explained by rates of effective demand.
>Using supply and demand alone to explain price is like geocentric astronomy
which is actually valid, and why flat earthers are hard to debunk.
>>2416502
>In both cases, supply and demand are in equilibrium, so neither supply nor demand nor their interplay can explain in this case why commodity B is 2 dollars more expensive than commodity A.
effective demand is higher for commodity B
>In all cases the average labor time required becomes essential to explaining prices differences
and this is true in all cases?

>>2416410
>while also demanding critics to answer within the frame of its unfounded axioms, concepts and claims?
Well that's just immanent critique, which is good.

>>2416589
No, it isn‘t, moron. Bourgeois economists function to justify and maintain the status quo, they aren‘t interested in being proven wrong. To address it‘s flaws you will have to step outside of their framework instead of accepting their axioms and based on that attempting to refute them.