/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2540388
>"Creating value" entails production for the sake of production to exchange for money
so to put it another way, value is determined by what we purchase in a market.
>>2540399
mining costs do not represent market price:
>In Q2’24, dare it be written, All-In Sustaining Costs (AISC) rose again, creeping up by 1% q/q, or a more substantial 6% y/y to US$1,388/oz.
https://www.gold.org/goldhub/gold-focus/2024/10/gold-cost-drivers-veritable-pick-and-mix
<Gold Price per Ounce: £3,049
https://www.bullionbypost.co.uk/gold-price/gold-price-chart-ounce-gbp/
so demand is higher than the rate of supply.

>>2545021
>the post i linked
Which?
>your assumptions only make sense if you think youtubers are the whole discussion.
What youtubers?
>now i wonder if you are another one of our reddit ultraleft newfriends
I've been on /leftypol/ since the beginning on 8ch and I assure you the usual discourse about "labor aristocracy" is what I stated.

>>2545847
>Which?
>>2251521
>What youtubers?
cockshott
>I assure you
and you are wrong as we have multiple discussions in the archive

care to adress the question on gig workers? or do you selectively respond to posts as it benefits your non-argument?

please read a single book that is not tans

>>2545900
Quoting from that post.
>if the current social average for a thing is X and a capitalist introduces tech that lowers the social average, they can continue to sell at or just below that X because all their competitors have not implemented the tech. so what is the source of additional surplus value that they appropriate? it comes from workers in the firms that are still working at the old average

Is this conclusion logical. Consider the following: What if the less efficient firms competing in the same sector simply did not exist. It seems highly likely the firm standing alone would have reaped even higher profits, but according to the above, it would have meant less surplus to appropriate.

>you are wrong as we have multiple discussions in the archive
/leftypol/ is over a decade old at this point and that post you linked to is your own, isn't it.

>>2546041
you are conflating rate and absolute profit, also individual and average and price and value. if other firms dont exist then its a monopoly and ltv doesn't apply within the sector but still holds true for the economy as a whole. monopoly cant create value thus the extended rents they command beyond their value are appropriated in exchange from other capitalists at large.

monopoly is mentioned in the post

i dont know why you think appealing to leftypol is supposed to be meaningful. this is basic marxism

>>2546056
>the extended rents they command beyond their value are appropriated in exchange from other capitalists at large.
Of course. And I don't take issue with such a claim. I take issue with the claim I quoted, here it is once again:
>if the current social average for a thing is X and a capitalist introduces tech that lowers the social average, they can continue to sell at or just below that X because all their competitors have not implemented the tech. so what is the source of additional surplus value that they appropriate? it comes from workers in the firms that are still working at the old average
Which I am 100 % certain is nonsense (and I'm 99 % certain it is not in Marx). The business owner at the more efficient firm gets more money and uses that money to obtain things. These can be all sorts of use-values, it's up to the business owner how to split that between investment and luxury consumption; and when his profits are extra-ordinarily high, these things will likely have more labor-time going into them than the stuff his business is selling. There are millions of use-values out there, but surely what he is NOT going to buy is the very stuff his business is producing and selling.

So how on earth would he extract something from exactly those workers at the less efficient firms producing the same stuff, of all people?

>i dont know why you think appealing to leftypol is supposed to be meaningful.
Sorry for referring to this website when making a claim about how discussion usually goes on this website.

>>2547113
Where do you think value comes from? Sorry for trying to make this website more literate.

>the more efficient firm gets more money
yes a larger market share results in a larger share of the total value for the individual, yet his rate of profit for each item goes down.

>it would have meant less surplus to appropriate.
yes the profit margin goes down as tech increases. this is the core argument, its the entire point of ltv for marx. the individual gets more money because of competitive advantage, but in doing so digs his own grave along with his class. its the central contradiction of capitalism

>it's up to the business owner how to split that between investment and luxury consumption
are you talking about his personal spending? this doesn't even make sense


>Thus, although in selling their commodities the capitalists of the various spheres of production recover the value of the capital consumed in their production, they do not secure the surplus-value, and consequently the profit, created in their own sphere by the production of these commodities. What they secure is only as much surplus-value, and hence profit, as falls, when uniformly distributed, to the share of every aliquot part of the total social capital from the total social surplus-value, or profit, produced in a given time by the social capital in all spheres of production. Every 100 of an invested capital, whatever its composition, draws as much profit in a year, or any other period of time, as falls to the share of every 100, the Nth part of the total capital, during the same period. So far as profits are concerned, the various capitalists are just so many stockholders in a stock company in which the shares of profit are uniformly divided per 100, so that profits differ in the case of the individual capitalists only in accordance with the amount of capital invested by each in the aggregate enterprise, i. e., according to his investment in social production as a whole, according to the number of his shares. Therefore, the portion of the price of commodities which replaces the elements of capital consumed in the production of these commodities, the portion, therefore, which will have to be used to buy back these consumed capital-values, i. e., their cost-price, depends entirely on the outlay of capital within the respective spheres of production. But the other element of the price of commodities, the profit added to this cost-price, does not depend on the amount of profit produced in a given sphere of production by a given capital in a given period of time. It depends on the mass of profit which falls as an average for any given period to each individual capital as an aliquot part of the total social capital invested in social production.

>When a capitalist sells his commodities at their price of production, therefore, he recovers money in proportion to the value of the capital consumed in their production and secures profit in proportion to this advanced capital as the aliquot part in the total social capital. His cost-prices are specific. But the profit added to them is independent of his particular sphere of production, being a simple average per 100 units of invested capital.

>Let us assume that the five different investments I to V of the foregoing illustration belong to one man. The quantity of variable and constant capital consumed per 100 of the invested capital in each of the departments I to V in the production of commodities I to V would, needless to say, make up a part of their price, since at least this price is required to recover the advanced and consumed portions of the capital. These cost-prices would therefore be different for each class of the commodities I to V, and would as such be set differently by the owner. But as regards the different quantities of surplus-value, or profit, produced by I to V, they might easily be regarded by the capitalist as profit on his advanced aggregate capital, so that each 100 units would get their definite aliquot part. Hence, the cost-prices of the commodities produced in the various departments I to V would be different; but that portion of their selling price derived from the profit added per 100 capital would be the same for all these commodities. The aggregate price of the commodities I to V would therefore equal their aggregate value, i. e., the sum of the cost-prices I to V plus the sum of the surplus-values, or profits, produced in I to V. It would hence actually be the money-expression of the total quantity of past and newly applied labour incorporated in commodities I to V. And in the same way 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.

>This statement seems to conflict with the fact that under capitalist production the elements of productive capital are, as a rule, bought on the market, and that for this reason their prices include profit which has already been realised, hence, include the price of production of the respective branch of industry together with the profit contained in it, so that the profit of one branch of industry goes into the cost-price of another. But if we place the sum of the cost-prices of the commodities of an entire country on one side, and the sum of its surplus-values, or profits, on the other, the calculation must evidently be right. For instance, take a certain commodity A. Its cost-price may contain the profits of B, C, D, etc., just as the cost-prices of B, C, D, etc., may contain the profits of A. Now, as we make our calculation the profit of A will not be included in its cost-price, nor will the profits of B, C, D, etc., be included in theirs. Nobody ever includes his own profit in his cost-price. If there are, therefore, n spheres of production, and if each makes a profit amounting to p, then their aggregate cost-price = k - np. Considering the calculation as a whole we see that since the profits of one sphere of production pass into the cost-price of another, they are therefore included in the calculation as constituents of the total price of the end-product, and so cannot appear a second time on the profit side. If any do appear on this side, however, then only because the commodity in question is itself an ultimate product, whose price of production does not pass into the cost-price of some other commodity.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch09.htm

>The capital invested in some spheres of production has a mean, or average, composition, that is, it has the same, or almost the same composition as the average social capital.

>In these spheres the price of production is exactly or almost the same as the value of the produced commodity expressed in money. If there were no other way of reaching a mathematical limit, this would be the one. Competition so distributes the social capital among the various spheres of production that the prices of production in each sphere take shape according to the model of the prices of production in these spheres of average composition, i.e., they = k + kp' (cost-price plus the average rate of profit multiplied by the cost price). This average rate of profit, however, is the percentage of profit in that sphere of average composition in which profit, therefore, coincides with surplus-value. Hence, the rate of profit is the same in all spheres of production, for it is equalized on the basis of those average spheres of production which have the average composition of capital. Consequently, the sum of the profits in all spheres of production must equal the sum of the surplus-values, and the sum of the prices of production of the total social product equal the sum of its value. But it is evident that the balance among spheres of production of different composition must tend to equalize them with the spheres of average composition, be it exactly or only approximately the same as the social average. Between the spheres more or less approximating the average there is again a tendency toward equalization, seeking the ideal average, i.e., an average that does not really exist, i.e., a tendency to take this ideal as a standard. In this way the tendency necessarily prevails to make the prices of production merely converted forms of value, or to turn profits into mere portions of surplus-value. However, these are not distributed in proportion to the surplus-value produced in each special sphere of production, but rather in proportion to the mass of capital employed in each sphere, so that equal masses of capital, whatever their composition, receive equal aliquot shares of the total surplus-value produced by the total social capital.

>In the case of capitals of average, or approximately average, composition, the price of production is thus the same or almost the same as the value, and the profit the same as the surplus-value produced by them. All other capitals, of whatever composition, tend toward this average under pressure of competition. But since the capitals of average composition are of the same, or approximately the same, structure as the average social capital, all capitals have the tendency, regardless of the surplus-value produced by them, to realize the average profit, rather than their own surplus-value in the price of their commodity, i.e., to realize the prices of production.

>On the other hand, it may be said that wherever an average profit, and therefore a general rate of profit, is produced — no matter by what means — such an average profit cannot be anything but the profit on the average social capital, whose sum is equal to the sum of surplus-value. Moreover, the prices obtained by adding this average profit to the cost-prices cannot be anything but the values transmuted into prices of production. Nothing would be altered if capitals in certain spheres of production would not, for some reason, be subject to the process of equalization. The average profit would then be computed on that portion of the social capital which enters the equalization process. It is evident that the average profit can be nothing but the total mass of surplus-values allotted to the various quantities of capital proportionally to their magnitudes in their different spheres of production. It is the total realized unpaid labour, and this total mass, like the paid, congealed or living, labour, obtains in the total mass of commodities and money that falls to the capitalists.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch10.htm

>>2542149
>offer an alternative reason why they fail to get a critical mass of support
They literally won the civil war you dungus

>>2547142 & >>2547143
You completely fail to address the argument, which is not in conflict at all with the Marx stuff you quote. First of, you should paraphrase what the argument in >>2547113 even is. And to get that right, you need to read the claim it quotes and disagrees with.

>>2547113
>>2547415
>So how on earth would he extract something from exactly those workers at the less efficient firms producing the same stuff, of all people?
to simplify anon's bloated point, market competition lowers the value of labour as a whole, so the less efficient firms are forced to sell cheaper, meaning that what is more productive takes up market share.

>>2547415
>First of, you should paraphrase what the argument
i asked for clarification because your argument doesn't make sense. its really not clear what you think you are disputing. marx is pretty explicit. competition redistributes value to more efficient firms. in other words
>the source of additional surplus value that they appropriate[…] comes from workers in the firms that are still working at the old average

if you want more you gotta tells us where do you think value comes from and what does a business owners luxury consumption have to do with the social distribution of value? why do you think i am suggesting he has to buy his own product and what does that have to do with the source of his profits?

value comes from labor. a more efficient capitalist cannot "create" more value, especially because the margin between his costs and surplus go down as he increases technology. so where does the additional value he gets come from? it comes from the total stock of social value existing in a capitalist society, it is redistributed through competition, appropriated by the more efficient firms.

you already understand how rent works it the same principle but temporary until competition equalizes is, where monopoly is a defined by a lack of competition.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativer_Mehrwert#Vom_Extramehrwert_zum_Extraprofit

>>2547633
Going once more to the post that you recommended:
>if the current social average for a thing is X and a capitalist introduces tech' that lowers the social average, they can continue to sell at or just below that X because all their competitors have not implemented the tech.
That I read as referring to companies in the same industry, because one would not say that e. g. a bicycle company "fails" to implement some new tech that comes up in the aviation industry.
>so what is the source of additional surplus value that they appropriate? it comes from workers in the firms that are still working at the old average
So this seems to refer to workers in other companies within the same industrial sector with lower efficiency and posits a value transfer coming from specifically these workers. And this does not make sense. I did not allude to it, I did not use cryptic language, I did not use sarcasm or irony. I directly pointed at exactly this and said this is wrong.

Value transfers happen through market exchanges at price ratios diverging from SNLT ratios. The capitalist with higher efficiency gets more money and uses that money to obtain things with much, much more embodied labor than "he gives" (=his workers give). He is not taking the embodied labor from less efficient workers producing the same use-value at other companies. (Of all the things in the world he could buy, why would he buy the very same things his company produces?)

Now tell me, was that your own post? I'm asking that because people are often blind to obvious typos in their own text and it's likewise with semantic mistakes they say but don't actually mean. Or perhaps it was a deeper mistake and you thought too abstractly about it (a world with everybody working at "widget" factories).

>>2548248
> The capitalist with higher efficiency gets more money and uses that money to obtain things
what things?
>Of all the things in the world he could buy, why would he buy the very same things his company produces?
What the fuck are you talking about? What does this have to do with unequal exchange?

>>2548265
You ask what does buying have to do with unequal exchange?

>>2547633
>i asked for clarification
You said >>2547113 was wrong. How can you disagree with a statement that you are incapable of paraphrasing and expect to be compelling?

Let me paraphrase it:
Do you believe that among companies producing the same commodity there is a value transfer from companies with less efficient tech to companies with more efficient tech? There. That is what was denied in >>2547113 and >>2548248 and none of the Marx quotes in the wall of text you posted in "response" (to the argument you could not paraphrase…) was about that.

There are people who are claiming exactly that, that for example less efficient wheat farmers in the third world transfer value to the more efficient wheat farmers in the US. Do you believe this?

>>2548694
yeah i dont think a capitalists luxury consumption changes the dynamic. indeed why would he buy his own products? this makes no sense. how would a capitalist buying a yacht disprove unequal exchange? what does his personal consumption have to do with the creation and appropriation of value in the production of his enterprise? you arent making any sense

>>2548694
>Do you believe that among companies producing the same commodity there is a value transfer from companies with less efficient tech to companies with more efficient tech?
>There are people who are claiming exactly that, that for example less efficient wheat farmers in the third world transfer value to the more efficient wheat farmers in the US. Do you believe this?
>>2549170
>yeah i dont think a capitalists luxury consumption changes the dynamic.
Are you having a stroke?

>>2549754
Do you believe that among companies producing the same commodity there is a value transfer from companies with less efficient tech to companies with more efficient tech?

>>2549758
Why do you insist on changing the subject every time you get proven wrong and answer every question with a question?

>>2549767
This post quotes a statement and asks a question about it:
>>2546041
<if the current social average for a thing is X and a capitalist introduces tech that lowers the social average, they can continue to sell at or just below that X because all their competitors have not implemented the tech. so what is the source of additional surplus value that they appropriate? it comes from workers in the firms that are still working at the old average
>Is this conclusion logical.
This post is about the same question:
>>2547113
>how on earth would he extract something from exactly those workers at the less efficient firms producing the same stuff, of all people?
This post is again about the same question, and at this point it should become clear to everybody what the question is and what triggered it:
>>2548248
<if the current social average for a thing is X and a capitalist introduces tech' that lowers the social average, they can continue to sell at or just below that X because all their competitors have not implemented the tech.
>That I read as referring to companies in the same industry, because one would not say that e. g. a bicycle company "fails" to implement some new tech that comes up in the aviation industry.
<so what is the source of additional surplus value that they appropriate? it comes from workers in the firms that are still working at the old average
>So this seems to refer to workers in other companies within the same industrial sector with lower efficiency and posits a value transfer coming from specifically these workers. And this does not make sense.
This post is again about the same question and explicitly announces that it is:
>>2548694
>Let me paraphrase it:
>Do you believe that among companies producing the same commodity there is a value transfer from companies with less efficient tech to companies with more efficient tech?
This post is again about the same question and is literally copy-pasting it:
>>2549758
>Do you believe that among companies producing the same commodity there is a value transfer from companies with less efficient tech to companies with more efficient tech?

And to this last post, you reply:
>Why do you insist on changing the subject every time you get proven wrong

.
.
.
Actually, all you have to do is to answer this question. Because it is the ONLY question.

>>2549808
>>2545021
>are gig workers lumpen?
>are people with two minimum wage part time jobs lumpen?
>>2547142
>Where do you think value comes from?
>are you talking about his personal spending?
>>2547633
>where do you think value comes from and what does a business owners luxury consumption have to do with the social distribution of value?
why do you think i am suggesting he has to buy his own product and what does that have to do with the source of his profits?
>where does the additional value he gets come from?
>>2548265
>what things?
>What does this have to do with unequal exchange?
>>2549170
>why would he buy his own products?
>how would a capitalist buying a yacht disprove unequal exchange?
>what does his personal consumption have to do with the creation and appropriation of value in the production of his enterprise?

>>2548248
>That I read as referring to companies in the same industry, because one would not say that e. g. a bicycle company "fails" to implement some new tech that comes up in the aviation industry.
Is industrialization not tech? Is automation not tech?
>Or perhaps it was a deeper mistake and you thought too abstractly about it (a world with everybody working at "widget" factories).
Thats actually the case for financial capital. Investment is abstract between capitalist competitors.

>>2547142
>the profit added to them is independent of his particular sphere of production
>All other capitals, of whatever composition

>>2549758
>the same commodity
>>2548694
>the same commodity
>>2548248
>I read as referring to companies in the same industry
Why?

>>2549758
>tech
Its not the just the tech, its the interrelated play of tech, productivity, wages, and international politics. You conveniently ignore posts that explain this >>2544943 to instead play Socrates fishing for gotchas. Why dont you explain your position for once instead of playing games?

>>2549822
>Why dont you explain your position for once instead of playing games?
My position, which I have explicitly stated several times, is that I do NOT believe in value transfer of the very narrow type (e. g. surplus value somehow flowing from workers at less efficient wheat farms to the capitalist owners of the more efficient wheat farms) and I have asked you, again several times and very explicitly, whether you do.

>>2549873
Guess you will have to re-read the thread to find out.

>>2549935
Well it's in one of the archived posts that you recommended and which is in all likelihood by you. So I asked because this is in your words, whether intended or not. And if it's unintended, then it's no surprise that you didn't initially understand the response to it, because, as I said in >>2548248:
>people are often blind to obvious typos in their own text and it's likewise with semantic mistakes.
(This is also the post where I make really clear what I see in these words and I don't believe anyone not emotionally invested in his e-penis would think that a far-fetched interpretation.)

But I wasn't sure whether it was unintentional, since this is also an explicit position of some of the unequal-exchange guys. A specific example a couple months ago on /leftypol/ was a claim of value transfer within the steel industry from the less efficient producers in India to the more efficient producers in the first world.

And I do not accept this position. And to be clear: I don't just disagree with it in the sense that the value transfer happens along more lines than just the narrow path. I say that the transfer lines do not contain the narrow path. Do you agree with my position?

>>2549965
>since this is also an explicit position of some of the unequal-exchange guys.
Have you actually read the unequal exchange book yet?
>I don't just disagree with it in the sense that the value transfer happens along more lines
And do you also dispute that?

>>2549978
>Have you actually read the unequal exchange book yet?
Not that one. Cope.
>>I don't just disagree with it in the sense that the value transfer happens along more lines
>And do you also dispute that?
This is answered in the next sentence after the sentence you quoted.

I don't dispute that price ratios can diverge from value ratios even in the long term and I know that Capital Volume III posits systematic transfers from industries with lower organic composition of capital to industries with higher composition and I already explicitly told you in >>2547415 that my argument is not in conflict with that. And I literally tell you this in the post you reply to: I say that the transfer lines do not contain the narrow path. This sentence contains the statement that transfer lines exist but they don't contain the narrow path. Do you agree with this?

>>2550104
>transfer lines exist
So you agree with unequal exchange.
>the transfer lines do not contain the narrow path
By "contains" do you mean that the "narrow path" understood to be the direct transfer of value from from A to B does not happen at all?

If transfer lines exist, then what are they?

If transfers exist from industries with lower organic composition of capital to industries with higher composition, then wouldn't at least some value from low organic composition agriculture or steel be transferred to higher composition agriculture or steel?

So then if we were to take a simplified example where the whole economy is just A and B, wouldn't we say that A is transferred to B?

>>2550141
A barter exchange of two goods between company A and company B that contain different SNLT is an unequal exchange. Likewise if the exchange is the good from A against money and then money against the good from B and these two goods have unequal SNLT. The value transfer is not something spooky that happens through the ether. It banally happens in the real world through the market exchange of goods (consumer goods as well as means of production and raw materials) and the different SNLT embedded in them. These are the transfer lines.

A trade line between two companies can refer to company A and B directly interfacing or indirectly in however many steps (company A sells an input to company X and company X makes an input with that for company Y which makes an input with that for company B). If there is no trade line between company A and company B, directly or indirectly, there is no value transfer. And when there is interaction through a chain, the longer the chain is, the less likely it is that much gets to the end.

That's why it is sensible to ask how it would affect company B if company A did not exist. If in that scenario one cannot imagine a negative effect for company B or one even estimates that would be overall good news for company B, how could one claim there currently is a value transfer from A to B? Perhaps one could still make that scenario produce that result by throwing a truckload of edge-case assumptions at it, but then one is engaged in playing rhetorical games and hairsplitting more than investigating the real world.

> In fact, the movement towards the closed monopolist area is not in itself new, but is inherent in the whole development of imperialism, whose essential character is the denial and ending of free trade. What is new is only the extreme intensity with which this monopolist policy is now pursued, and the complexity of the weapons which are now brought into play for its realization.
> Not only the old tariff weapons, which are now brought to unheard of heights, but a host of new weapons - surtaxes variable at a moment's notice, quotas, embargoes, exchange restrictions, currency control, complex trade alliances, State subsidies, and direct State economic control - are now brought into play by the imperialist giants in their ever more desperate conflict for closed markets, for privileged areas of exploitation, and for control of the sources of raw materials.
> The intensified conflict of the imperialist Powers for the shrinking world market makes this development to new and ever fiercer weapons of economic warfare, and essentially reactionary choking of the channels of free world trade,
<not merely some foolish and mistaken policy of particular statesmen, but the inevitable development and working out of the inner laws of imperialism.

>In vain the theoretical economic experts of the League of Nations throw up their hands in distress and deplore the universal "loss" and "impoverishment" caused by such politics.

^That's what Dick Wolff is doing right now, while blaming it all on Trump and what he calls the white working class

>>2532234
Michael Hudson, if you can stand his incessant Trotskyist wailings

>>2550311
>A barter exchange
I thought we were talking about capitalism.
>A trade line
Is a "transfer line" the same as a "trade line"? I thought we were talking about transfers of value.
>If there is no trade line between company A and company B, directly or indirectly, there is no value transfer.
Then why does Marx say that extra surplus value is drawn from the total social stock of value and redistributed through exchange? Do you think he is saying that A and B have to be inputs or outputs of eachother? That doesn't seem to be the case.
>the longer the chain is, the less likely it is that much gets to the end
Sure, but there is some that gets to the end. And if any extra surplus value gets to the end this creates an imbalance, and through continued cycles of the circuit of capital that imbalance grows. And if there is a net drain on low ooc to high ooc that is then invested into addition means of production at each step then this growth compounds exponentially and the gap widens.
>That's why it is sensible to ask how it would affect company B if company A did not exist.
No it doesn't make sense because because the transfer line is the entire market structure of capitalism, not individual trades between producers.
>a truckload of edge-case assumptions
But its not an edge-case assumption its a hypothetical simplified market. The same principle applies when you scale up.

>>2550969
>I thought we were talking about capitalism.
Remember when you asked a question in response to a sentence that was literally answered in the next sentence after that (pointed out to you in >>2550104). Please read a comment to the end before composing your reply. If you read the comment >>2550311 as a whole, you will see that it develops a concept from less complex to more complex as a didactic device. (And by the way, barter still does happen in capitalism, yes, even between firms. It's legal.)
>Is a "transfer line" the same as a "trade line"?
No. You should be able to figure out what these terms mean just by reading the comment as a whole. Trades connecting two companies, whether directly or indirectly through intermediate links, make a transfer line if the trades are unequal in SNLT terms. Now, individual trades are almost always unequal in SNLT terms, the question is really what the general tendency of repeated trades through such a chain is. (If on Tuesday a bit more goes from A to B and on Wednesday it's the other way that's not very interesting.) If the general tendency is that on the end of A more is given in SNLT terms than is received from B at the end, we can say there is a value transfer from A to B.
>Then why does Marx say that extra surplus value is drawn from the total social stock of value and redistributed through exchange?
The statement "group A does something to group B" does not logically entail "each individual member of A does something to each individual member of B". Example: The statement "Alice's family gives gifts to Bob's family" does not logically entail the statement "each member of Alice's family is gifting something to each member of Bob's family". Likewise with Marx and the redistribution of surplus value in volume III. Read >>2547142 carefully and you will see that Marx makes the former type of statement and not the latter. (I don't give a shit whether you posted that yourself. You don't understand it.)

>>2551260
>If you read the comment as a whole, you will see that it develops a concept from less complex to more complex as a didactic device.
>No. You should be able to figure out what these terms mean just by reading the comment as a whole.
>If the general tendency is that on the end of A more is given in SNLT terms than is received from B at the end, we can say there is a value transfer from A to B.
>The statement "group A does something to group B" does not logically entail "each individual member of A does something to each individual member of B".
Okay great then you have all the tools necessary to understand what I have been saying the whole time. Now go back to the original post you started your fit over and apply the same logic.

>>2551279
>you have all the tools necessary to understand what I have been saying the whole time
And I'm telling you that you seem committed to metaphysical nonsense and that you don't quite understand what Marx says here >>2547142
Marx says the result is quantitatively the same as what a certain type of simple calculation results in. He is NOT saying that this simple calculation resembles the actual process. As quoted in that post, but bolding different parts:
<What they secure is only as much surplus-value, and hence profit, as falls, when uniformly distributed
-which would be very odd phrasing indeed if he really thought about the value flying through the ether as the third-worldists have it. Since he is NOT saying that this simple calculation resembles the actual process, he is not implying that "the transfer line is the entire market structure of capitalism".

Anyway, see you tomorrow.

>>2551301
You already conceded that value is transferred but you have yet to tell us what you think in your interpretation the source of this value is despite being repeatedly asked. It really seems like you made up a strawman in your head based on your own misunderstanding despite being told right away that you are making assumptions, and instead of clarifying what you mean you just repeatedly ask the same inane question based on that false assumption.

Really though you could just read the book instead of inventing positions other people dont hold.

>>2551301 (me)
>Marx says the result is quantitatively the same as what a certain type of simple calculation results in. He is NOT saying that this simple calculation resembles the actual process.
To elaborate on that, it's a bit like having to stay within a weight limit for transporting items and facing the question whether one is below that without data in hand about the individual weights, but only with data about the average item weight and the number of items. From that one can trivially compute the total weight of the pile. But it would be asinine to assume that the things themselves actually get uniform in weight.

>>2551309
>You already conceded that value is transferred
I did not "concede" that, at no point did I assume otherwise.
>you have yet to tell us what you think in your interpretation the source of this value is
This shouldn't be necessary in a thread on Marxist economics: labor power. (There are complications in that you can't directly use time, because people work at different speed, and there is labor power at different skill levels, and there is overproduction and mismanagement.) I'm not making a new definition of value. I'm telling you that at some point the value has to be embodied in something to be transferred.
>you just repeatedly ask the same inane question
Well at least now you don't claim anymore I'm constantly changing the topic, so finally you are making a tiny bit of progress.

Third-worldists say first-worlders live the nice life on the back of third-world workers. You live the nice life (any life really) by consuming use-values. Hence to make a compelling case for the third-worldist claim being true, value transfer can at best only play one part in a bigger argument about use-values constructed wholly or in crucial parts in the third world ending up being consumed in the first world. The value transfer described volume III from industries with low organic composition of capital to industries with high organic composition of capital all by itself does not work as proof or almost-proof for the third-worldist claim. Marx did not construct that to argue for giga-profits in the industries with high organic composition of capital, but just normal profits.

>>2551311
Make the case for the book. Why is that your go-to for unequal exchange and not the stuff by Jason Hickel or Zak Cope *(recently turned Zionist lol)?

>>2552541 (me)
>The value transfer described volume III
*The value transfer described in volume III

>>2552541
>I did not "concede" that
>>2552541
>value transfer described volume III from industries with low organic composition of capital to industries with high organic composition of capital
>labor power
So when I talk about wage differentials, ie the price of labor power, that is something meaningfully different to you? and you say im splitting hairs and not reading the context of the whole post
>at least now you don't claim anymore I'm constantly changing the topic
and then you immediately change the topic back to
>Third-worldists
>first-worlders live the nice life on the back of third-world workers
>>2544920
>sounds to me like you are jumping to conclusions and making assumptions.
>labor aristocracy and unequal exchange can exist without third-worldism.
>i never said that workers in the first world take share in the looting.
this can also be read as "i am not a third-worldist"
and neither is Emmanuel btw
>all by itself does not work as proof or almost-proof
so third world nations dont have a lower composition of organic capital than first world nations?
>for the third-worldist claim
again, not a third worldist
>Why is that your go-to for unequal exchange and not the stuff by Jason Hickel or Zak Cope
why is my go-to a marxist and not a liberal or a liberal? you really cant figure that out? you really have been attacking something you dont understand for multiple days now

i wonder if it could have anything to do with the term being coined by the author lmao

>>2552574
>you say im splitting hairs
No. I'm guessing in >>2550311 that it would amount to splitting hairs over edge cases if you actually made some effort in your posts and bothered to flesh out your argument.
>so third world nations dont have a lower composition of organic capital than first world nations?
What would be the relevance of this, given that Marx argues in Volume III that the value transfer to firms with high organic composition merely gives them a normal profit?

Make the case for the book. What's the gist of it. "Here take these 500 pages he is not a lib or a zio" is not very compelling.

>>2537941
Decentralized petit bourgeois hands typed this

>>2537941
What if we replaced money with labor coupons? That would be 100% full communism LMAO

>>2554071
I have no good evidence anybody in this thread has actually read Emmanuel's book. (Shitting on "Unequal Exchange Theory" is a /leftypol/ tradition, but usually the targeted authors have been other guys than Emmanuel.) And if one shills for a specific book, but somehow can't give a summary of said book, why should anybody take the recommendation from that person seriously? Since reading books takes time, being for or against reading a specific work is not a symmetric issue. The onus is on people shilling for it. Proper investigation in this context is asking the people claiming to have done the reading, and so far they have not cooperated in the investigation.

>>2554242
Did you post an embed? I'm on an adblocker, so I'm not seeing anything. Just post link.