/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2571815
>>2571906
to further explain the point on quality (substance), quantity (magnitude) and measure (form), we may read from the first edition of marx's capital (1867):
<What was decisively important, however, was to discover the inner, necessary connection between value-form, value-substance, and value-amount; i.e., expressed conceptually, to prove that the value form arises out of the value-concept.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/commodity.htm
david harvey presents a similar trilateral diagram in "companion to marx's capital" (2010), but incorrectly labels its internal attributes as "use-value", "exchange-value" and "value" (p. 23), since he misinterprets marx:
>value is socially necessary labor­ time (p. 22)
value in itself is not SNLT; SNLT is "value-amount", which must relate to its substance and form.

paul cockshott has previously attempted to explain it in aristotelian terms, of substance being a unity of form and matter, which marx assigns between the poles of a commodity's "natural form" (use-value; concrete) and its "social form" (exchange-value; abstract). an issue with this view is that "substance" is positively identified with use-value by marx, yet is likewise abstracted by exchange, while in the aristotelian model, the actuality of substance comports with form, not matter. i feel that some marxian theorists attempt to resolve this dialectically (such as harvey), by positing production as a factor of exchange (e.g. "socially necessary"), which is not wholly incorrect, although i do think marx had a general sense of causation, such as the syllogism in the grundrisse between universal production, particular distribution and singluar consumption; a chain which has a beginning and end - although, when he gets to supply and demand (production/consumption) he does say that each is the cause of the other. of social necessity, he also takes the ricardian line that for labour to "count", it must be exchanged for, so we cant quite blame interpreters of marx, but marx himself for being so confusing. all in all, i think hegel's "doctrine of being" works best to understand it, as a relation between quality-quantity-measure, which marx intentionally subtitles in the chapter. the doctrine of essence is also present, between value and its form of appearance. as i have also shown, the doctrine of the concept (begriff) is clearly shown by the development of capital, where being and essence (objectivity) become joined to the subject of value (living labour). its this conjoinment which is the source of surplus.

>>2571927
the point still stands; if you dont like it, then stop forcing yourself to be malcontented. if you have anything to actually contribute however, then go ahead.
>>2571930
they can never actually explain why im wrong or why i ought to be despised, yet i live rent free in their heads anyway. i think its something to do with marxist cultists encountering heretics or unbelievers. of course, it only ends for them with concentration camps where they get to "re-educate" you into following their opinions, otherwise you deserve to die or be enslaved.

>>2571930
>>2571950
That's a totally different anon, the only posts I've made have been in regards to how effectual discussion is in relation to how it may be applied to praxis. That should have been obvious with the writing style.
>>2571950
>they can never actually explain why im wrong or why i ought to be despised, yet i live rent free in their heads anyway.
I wrote a longer post that I despise having lost when I clicked a link to double check a reference, but to shorten and summarize what I guess my issues are, it's that you tend to easily go off on side tangents that aren't very useful and are more a practice in onanism, and that you tend to overcomplicate things beyond what they are by taking the most uncharitable view of it, while inserting some assumptions into the small details that then add up. Just now, your writing about Marx and Aristotle is easily addressed by looking at the context of his critique, of how Aristotle only goes half way in his theory but is unable to recognize the uniting feature of his comparisons, and the social context of why that might be. Marx seems to be using "concept" (even when referring to antiquity, though this may be wholly separate as well) in a very different way then you are, and I don't see how it's a contradiction to value (as he defines it) being an emergent "abstraction" dependent on social relations. And from that, I further do not see the necessity of getting into the weeds with Hegel, when much of what you refer to Marx here doesn't bother with such, with Marx using Hegel at the most as a framing model/diagram then using it outright. Complexity can be useful, but not when its unnecessary. You seem to also add more confusion by taking early Marx (Grundrisse) and trying to reckon it with his far less "Hegelian" influenced works 10 or 20 years later, when I found Marx to more heavily "Darwinian" in his framing as time went on. Using terms like the "economic cell form" is a lot less of a hegalian framing.
>think its something to do with marxist cultists encountering heretics or unbelievers. of course, it only ends for them with concentration camps where they get to "re-educate" you into following their opinions, otherwise you deserve to die or be enslaved.
Lots of assumptions here.

In general though, I don't like Kaustsky-esc personality debates. It becomes a process of who has the time and who can type more in response to a singular individual, rather then a collaborative effort in engaging in learning that can they be made into meaningful IRL praxis. There is very little actual political economy happening here in regards to our current capitalist relations.

>>2571989
>praxis
what is the thread topic, again? dont you think its weird how the guy who talks about political economy in a political economy thread is constantly demonised?
>side tangents that aren't very useful and are more a practice in onanism
such as?
>tend to overcomplicate things
any examples?
>Just now, your writing about Marx and Aristotle is easily addressed by looking at the context of his critique, of how Aristotle only goes half way in his theory but is unable to recognize the uniting feature of his comparisons, and the social context of why that might be
but its a false analysis, as i have previously demonstrated. aristotle has a theory of value and indeed, commensuration, which marx obscures. he doesnt even provide a source for his quotations, which says a lot.
>I don't see how it's a contradiction
because value as a social construct must have recognition to have validity. if it is unrecognised, then how does it persist?
>I further do not see the necessity of getting into the weeds with Hegel
because marx is using hegel's logic to describe the development of capitalism… you appear utterly incurious as to the contents of the text, so why have loyalty to a man you dont even want to understand?
>You seem to also add more confusion by taking early Marx (Grundrisse) and trying to reckon it with his far less "Hegelian" influenced works 10 or 20 years later
marx in the 1873 preface to capital says this:
<I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker [hegel], and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him. 
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm
you are running on fumes.
>Lots of assumptions here.
its the lived reality of whoever combats marxists. its a cult which breeds more cults.
>collaborative effort in engaging in learning
yes, hopefully you have learned something from me.
>There is very little actual political economy happening here in regards to our current capitalist relations.
nothing's stopping you from writing about it. 🤷🏻‍♂️

>>2571930
>he certainly cites sources and contributes more than you
lol you dont know who i am. i stopped in round two after going in circles with this guy for over six months with heavy citations. he openly contradicts himself constantly and posts things that are objectively false and when corrected ignores it. his position has been completely exhausted and he just comes back to repeat it despite being proven wrong repeatedly

opinions on shimomuran economics.
Mainstream economics suggests that investment should equal savings. Shimomuran economics suggests investment should be greater than savings.
Shimomuran econmics suggest doing this by using the central bank to create money out of "nothing". For example, the central bank buys assets in local banks and then puts a debt (I owe you) towards these local banks, in its balance sheets. The central bank then sends this literal "free" bank credit to the local banks. The local banks then send it to key industries for the central bank guides the local bank to do that. (more credit to those local banks that follow the central banks guidance).
Japan, sk, taiwan, and maybe china did this. It lead to an economic boom

>>2571906
>>You say here the ratios of abstract labor going into commodities is equal to their exchange ratios and equal to the labor-time input ratios
>theyre the same thing: Ax = By
Marx explicitly says it is the labor time in what you quote right after asserting this:
<We know the measure of its magnitude. It is labour time. The form, which stamps value as exchange-value, remains to be analysed.
>marx appears to say that value is an autonomous entity which is present even where it is unrecognised
Yeah he appears to say that because he is saying that.
>marx affirms that the "concept" of value did not exist in antiquity, so as to be socially realised:
The quote that follows is from his earlier scribblings not meant for publication and not from Capital. Why would you put much weight into that. Then you quote Capital:
<Aristotle therefore, himself, tells us what barred the way to his further analysis; it was the absence of any concept of value.
>https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
Again, context. What is Marx saying just a few sentences after this:
<The secret of the expression of value, namely, that all kinds of labour are equal and equivalent, because, and so far as they are human labour in general, cannot be deciphered, until the notion of human equality has already acquired the fixity of a popular prejudice.
About Aristotle:
<What is that equal something, that common substance, which admits of the value of the beds being expressed by a house? Such a thing, in truth, cannot exist, says Aristotle (…) The peculiar conditions of the society in which he lived, alone prevented him from discovering what, “in truth,” was at the bottom of this equality.
Marx is talking about value as something that somebody living in antiquity cannot see, but somebody looking back at antiquity can see.
>so value as an "abstraction" existed, yet it had no concept? this is the hegelian gobbledygook one is forced to reckon with.
Something can exist without you, me, or a famous philosopher, seeing it. Marx in Capital says Aristotle didn't have the mindset for seeing value because he lived in a slave-owner society.

>>2571989
>your writing about Marx and Aristotle is easily addressed by looking at the context of his critique, of how Aristotle only goes half way in his theory but is unable to recognize the uniting feature of his comparisons, and the social context of why that might be. Marx seems to be using "concept" (even when referring to antiquity, though this may be wholly separate as well) in a very different way then you are, and I don't see how it's a contradiction to value (as he defines it) being an emergent "abstraction" dependent on social relations. And from that, I further do not see the necessity of getting into the weeds with Hegel, when much of what you refer to Marx here doesn't bother with such, with Marx using Hegel at the most as a framing model/diagram then using it outright. Complexity can be useful, but not when its unnecessary. You seem to also add more confusion by taking early Marx (Grundrisse) and trying to reckon it with his far less "Hegelian" influenced works 10 or 20 years later, when I found Marx to more heavily "Darwinian" in his framing as time went on. Using terms like the "economic cell form" is a lot less of a hegalian framing.
Yes, exactly.

And getting back to my original question for Smith Anon: I do not believe that Marx thought that value ratios are equal to exchange-value ratios.

SmithAnon, you were responded to in the immigration thread.

>>2572946
i responded 👍
>>2572384
>he openly contradicts himself constantly and posts things that are objectively false and when corrected ignores it.
any examples? 🥱
>>2572884
>I do not believe that Marx thought that value ratios are equal to exchange-value ratios.
whats the difference? 🤔
exchange-value is "value in exchange" (Ax=By)
>>2572406
unfortunately, there are no primary sources i can find from shimomuran himself, but from secondary sources, he's described as a keynesian, so your description makes sense. the mainstream view is that savings represent future spending and so the increase of savings is an increase in future value. this is true, but only so far as it concerns its marginal and total content. the individual saver benefits by saving, yet if everyone saved, the individual would suffer, since the economy would shrink and thus there would be less to save for. in keynesian terms, this often refers to the "paradox of thrift":
<Every such attempt to save more by reducing consumption will so affect incomes that the attempt necessarily defeats itself. 
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/ch07.htm
we may then see keynes' view on the relationship between saving and investment:
>[i] Income = value of output = consumption + investment. [ii] Saving = income - consumption. [iii] Therefore saving = investment. [quantitatively]
<Thus the act of investment in itself cannot help causing the residual or margin, which we call saving, to increase by a corresponding amount.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/ch06.htm
so, investment can increase saving, but saving cannot increase investment. he presents this chapter as a case of equilibrium however, and explains disequilibrium (excess) in the next:
<change in the excess of investment over saving was the motive force governing changes in the volume of output […] the expectation of an increased excess of Investment over Saving, given the former volume of employment and output, will induce entrepreneurs to increase the volume of employment and output.
thus, as shimomuran is described as believing, so too does keynes believe the same, that spending on investment boosts economies, more than saving can.

>>2573131
>>2573131
thank you for your opinion on shimomuran economics.
Also I recommend reading prince of yen, or other works by richard werner. Hes the primary scholar who studies shimomuran economics

>>2573131
>any examples?
just the hundreds in all the previous threads

>>2573807
>hundreds of examples
pick one.
>>2573578
no prob, bob. 👍

highlighting a difference between ancient economic conception versus the modern, as a difference between the role of the mechanical arts in relation to liberal arts.

first is the earliest text on formal economics, xenophon's "the economist" (360 B.C):
<Well, then, we agreed that economy was the proper title of a branch of knowledge, and this branch of knowledge appeared to be that whereby men are enabled to enhance the value of their houses or estates; and by this word "house or estate" we understood the whole of a man's possessions; and "possessions" again we defined to include those things which the possessor should find advantageous for the purposes of his life; and things advantageous finally were discovered to mean all that a man knows how to use and turn to good account. Further, for a man to learn all branches of knowledge not only seemed to us an impossibility, but we thought we might well follow the example of civil communties in rejecting the base mechanic arts so called, on the ground that they destroy the bodies of the artisans, as far as we can see, and crush their spirits.
https://www.fulltextarchive.com/book/The-Economist/
we may thusly compare this to the first modern text of formal political economy, antoine montchretien's "treatise" (1615):
<Among these three kinds of men are practised the effective arts, commonly called mechanical, having more regard to the hands that exercise them than to their own dignity… We note in mechanics the representations and images of the same prudence that shines in the liberal arts, in proportion to their greater or lesser merit… These are streams flowing from the same source and spreading incessantly through the necessities of human life […] Let us then consider the liberal and mechanical arts, where its light shines most brightly in so many rays; we will find them so necessary, useful and pleasant that the one we look at most will seem the most preferable […] I say this to shut the mouths of those who would accuse me of speaking to such high and exalted Majesties about things which they consider to be so low and mechanical…
>>>/edu/25139
what is present in montchretien is the esteem of equality between the liberal and mechanical arts as forms of making wealth. only at a higher stage do we see adam smith declare that the practitioners of the liberal arts are in fact "unproductive" and that expense on their part diminishes the wealth of the nation (1776):
<The labour of some of the most respectable orders in the society is, like that of menial servants, unproductive of any value, and does not fix or realize itself in any permanent subject, or vendible commodity, which endures after that labour is past, and for which an equal quantity of labour could afterwards be procured. The sovereign, for example, with all the officers both of justice and war who serve under him, the whole army and navy, are unproductive labourers.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book02/ch03.htm
karl marx also comments upon this (1863):
<The great mass of so-called “higher grade” workers—such as state officials, military people, artists, doctors, priests, judges, lawyers, etc.—some of whom are not only not productive but in essence destructive, but who know how to appropriate to themselves a very great part of the “material” wealth partly through the sale of their “immaterial” commodities and partly by forcibly imposing the latter on other people—found it not at all pleasant to be relegated economically to the same class as clowns and menial servants and to appear merely as people partaking in the consumption, parasites on the actual producers (or rather agents of production).
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1863/theories-surplus-value/ch04.htm
thus we see that as the economic mediates society more and more, the mechanical is esteemed above the liberal.

>>2572884
>I do not believe that Marx thought that value ratios are equal to exchange-value ratios.
>>2573131
>whats the difference? 🤔
>exchange-value is "value in exchange" (Ax=By)
In Volume I, Marx presented his model with the simplifying assumption value ratios = exchange value ratios. He did that for a pedagogical reason, since the first book was supposed to be the introduction. He explicitly told the readers:
<We have in fact. assumed that prices = values. We shall, however, see, in Book III., that even in the case of average prices the assumption cannot be made in this very simple manner.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch09.htm#9

>>2577125
you havent explained the difference between value ratios and exchange-value ratios (Ax = By). the ratio of the value of A in exchange for B is its exchange-value (e.g. A = £2). theyre the same thing, as i have already stated.

>>2570602
>In the writings of Marx, what is the difference between value and exchange value?
>>2570972 (Smith Anon)
>the terms can be substituted for one another
>>2572884
>I do not believe that Marx thought that value ratios are equal to exchange-value ratios.
>>2573131 (Smith Anon)
>whats the difference? 🤔
>exchange-value is "value in exchange" (Ax=By)
>>2577125
>In Volume I, Marx presented his model with the simplifying assumption value ratios = exchange value ratios. He did that for a pedagogical reason, since the first book was supposed to be the introduction. He explicitly told the readers:
<We have in fact. assumed that prices = values. We shall, however, see, in Book III., that even in the case of average prices the assumption cannot be made in this very simple manner.
>>2577916 (Smith Anon)
>you havent explained the difference between value ratios and exchange-value ratios
>theyre the same thing
Your argument is: This hasn't been explained to me, therefore it doesn't exist.

The current state of the thread is that we now have confirmation in writing by Marx that the assumed equivalence is only a simplification used in the earlier part of his exposition, and to be dropped later.

We can go into what the difference is, but first please admit:
1. Marx claimed there to be a difference.
2. You were not aware of it.

>>2578013
no, there is no difference, and marx never says there is a difference between the value of a commodity and its value in exchange. value as abstract labour only appears in exchange, so its an inseparable attribute.

you are imagining a difference, asserting it, yet never proving it. im bored of this cat and mouse nonsense.

>>2578042 (Smith Anon)
>no, there is no difference
Again, Marx:
<We have in fact. assumed that prices = values. We shall, however, see, in Book III., that even in the case of average prices the assumption cannot be made in this very simple manner.
Quoted now for the third time. How many times does Smith Anon have to read this?

>marx never says there is a difference between the value of a commodity and its value in exchange
And how would Smith Anon know that without having reading Book III?

>>2578085
if the exchange value of X = £2,
how do we determine its value?

>>2578117
You can't.

What I mean is the information is not in the individual price. You have to go from macro to micro to figure out SNLT. Because we live in a society.

>>2578130
so we know the value of a commodity in the act of exchange, where concrete labour is abstracted as a quantity of homogenous labour-time so as to produce equivalence in a ratio of substance (i.e. A = £2), but we must consider a ratio beyond this, which is both indefinable and unknowable? this is your conclusion?

>>2578139
SNLT is measured in exchange-value as marx said, so why invoke this when you are talking about a mystical "value" beyond the realms of knowledge?

>>2578143
>SNLT is measured in exchange-value as marx said, so why invoke this when you are talking about a mystical "value" beyond the realms of knowledge?
SNLT is a more general concept than something that only happens in capitalism. We live in capitalism. In capitalism, we look at SNLT through the dirty lens of exchange ratios. Or we could say it's like looking at a shadow.

Or we could say it's like this: Suppose
1. I regularly fuck Smith Anon's mother.
2. Sometimes she gets more excited than other times.
3. When she gets more excited her moans get louder proportionally.

But it cannot be directly inferred from these three points that how loud she seems to Smith Anon must be proportional to how excited she is, because depending on where I fuck her and where Smith Anon is also affects how loud he perceives her to be. But Smith Anon does not grasp that and thinks it must be the walls themselves that are fucking and saying anything else is "mystical gobbledygook".

>>2578185
so, is this you explaining the difference between value ratios and exchange value ratios, then? or have you given up on that?

>>2578185
>>2578236
read this carefully:
<the common substance that manifests itself in the exchange value of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their value. The progress of our investigation will show that exchange value is the only form in which the value of commodities can manifest itself or be expressed […] When, at the beginning of this chapter, we said, in common parlance, that a commodity is both a use value and an exchange value, we were, accurately speaking, wrong. A commodity is a use value or object of utility, and a value. It manifests itself as this two-fold thing, that it is, as soon as its value assumes an independent form – viz., the form of exchange value. It never assumes this form when isolated, but only when placed in a value or exchange relation with another commodity of a different kind. When once we know this, such a mode of expression does no harm; it simply serves as an abbreviation.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
so exchange-value is the only mode of expression for the value of commodities. value cannot be expressed outside of this quantitative relationship to marx, which may be represented as a ratio between commodities:
<the ratio of the value of silver to that of gold…
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch03.htm
again, this is all entirely uncontroversial to most.

>>2578085
>How many times does Smith Anon have to read this?
He doesn't read he only lies.

>>2578738
lies about what? 🤔

>>2578085
>>2578738
here are some more resources to help your confusion:
<The prices which obtain as the average of the various rates of profit in the different spheres of production added to the cost-prices of the different spheres of production, constitute the prices of production […] 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.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch09.htm
so, the average price is still reflective of the value given in production, the same as in pre-capitalist relations, and in fact, the total average is equal to the total value. so as marx says, total value = total price, which if you measure as exchange-value, comes to the same conclusion: [Ax = By]. hope this helps. 🙂

>>2578738
Smith Anon believes exchange ratios equate to value (SNLT) ratios. Smith Anon missed the announcement in Capital Book I that this is not so and that this point will be developed in Book III of Capital.

>>2578042
<The grouping of the various value portions of a commodity which only replace the value of the capital expended in its production under the head of cost-price expresses, on the one hand, the specific character of capitalist production. The capitalist cost of the commodity is measured by the expenditure of capital, while the actual cost of the commodity is measured by the expenditure of labour. Thus, the capitalist cost-price of the commodity differs in quantity from its value, or its actual cost-price.
Chapter one.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch01.htm

Smith Anon hasn't read Book III. Not even the first chapter. (By the way I also don't believe he read Book I. He has attention deficit disorder. He just poked around in it, pulled some quotes, and stored them for later use together with some key words. Since then his mind has deteriorated even further and now he just goes through these "conversations" with his NPC graph. Not only does he not remember the broader context of these quotes, he doesn't even remember the context window of the sentences right before and after. Actually, he doesn't even read the quotes he copy-pastes. He sees a trigger word and seeks to retrieve something with that label. What's next in his intellectual development? I suppose he will streamline the process by not reading whole trigger words and just go by the first letter.)

>>2580366
so… what is the argument? 🤔
what is the difference between exchange-value ratios and value ratios? oh wait, you already said that you dont know. as i have perfectly demonstrated, the ratio between values in exchange (SNLT) is their price. if A = B = £2, this is its amount in SNLT.
>Thus, the capitalist cost-price of the commodity differs in quantity from its value, or its actual cost-price.
yes… what the cost is to the capitalist (c+v) is not the cost of total production, which is its "actual cost-price", or value (c+v+s):
<The value of every commodity produced in the capitalist way is represented in the formula: C = c + v + s.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch01.htm
thus, the value of the total commodity is factored by surplus value, which may equalise a rate of profit by combining capitals, as i have already shown: total price = total value. you can read this here if youre still confused: >>2578826
here's an explanation of the chart:
<Taken together, the commodities are sold at 2 + 7 + 17 = 26 above, and 8 + 18 = 26 below their value, so that the deviations of price from value balance out one another through the uniform distribution of surplus-value, or through addition of the average profit of 22 per 100 units of advanced capital to the respective cost-prices of the commodities I to V.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch09.htm
total price = total value. hope this helps 🙂

>>2581141
🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

>>2549046
The point Marx is making is about abstract labor and "abstract value", i.e. what does it mean to value something, rather than regarding value merely as a convenience for exchange in some token. Even if you didn't have money as such in any form, you'd still have the same problem of value presented as something different. The planner of a socialist economy still has to deal with value, exploitation, and all of the things that are required to get something out of labor.

>>2578826
>here are some more resources to help your confusion:
<The prices which obtain as the average of the various rates of profit in the different spheres of production added to the cost-prices of the different spheres of production, constitute the prices of production […] 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.
>https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch09.htm
If you ever get around, for the first time in your life, to read a whole paragraph of Marx, let it be the one that you just quoted from here. Note that the deviations in the following do not refer to temporary supply-demand fluctuations, but how parts systematically diverge from the total average:
<Taken together, the commodities are sold at 2 + 7 + 17 = 26 above, and 8 + 18 = 26 below their value, so that the deviations of price from value balance out one another through the uniform distribution of surplus-value, or through addition of the average profit of 22 per 100 units of advanced capital to the respective cost-prices of the commodities I to V. One portion of the commodities is sold above its value in the same proportion in which the other is sold below it. And it is only the sale of the commodities at such prices that enables the rate of profit for capitals I to V to be uniformly 22%, regardless of their different organic composition. The prices which obtain as the average of the various rates of profit in the different spheres of production added to the cost-prices of the different spheres of production, constitute the prices of production. They have as their prerequisite the existence of a general rate of profit, and this, again, presupposes that the rates of profit in every individual sphere of production taken by itself have previously been reduced to just as many average rates. These particular rates of profit = s/C in every sphere of production, and must, as occurs in Part I of this book, be deduced out of the values of the commodities. Without such deduction the general rate of profit (and consequently the price of production of commodities) remains a vague and senseless conception. Hence, the price of production of a commodity is equal to its cost-price plus the profit, allotted to it in per cent, in accordance with the general rate of profit, or, in other words, to its cost-price plus the average profit.

>as marx says, total value = total price
Suppose an elevator has a weight maximum of 500 kilo. Smith Anon and four other people are riding the elevator. The elevator operates normally. Smith Anon takes that as proof each person on the elevator has a weight of 100 kilo or less. The four other people leave. Smith Anon's mother enters. The elevator crashes. Smith Anon's final thoughts are that this must be all a bad dream because 100 times two is less than 500.

>>2581998
marx wants to overcome the concept of value by overcoming the abstraction of labour in exchange (e.g. via central planning). thats why he doesnt consider labour certificates "money", and so we can call them coupons. of course, you would call it slavery to be paid a salary in coupons, but in communism, this is "freedom", apparently. marx also states directly that labour must be exploited by the state in the form of surplus labour and taxation to expand production. thus, i call marx's communism "state capitalism".
>>2582003
price = exchange-value = SNLT
an easy marxist formula. lets read this:
<the sum of the prices of production of all commodities produced in society — the totality of all branches of production — is equal to the sum of their values.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch09.htm
i.e. total price = total value
this is why as marx says, whatever is sold above value must be balanced by what is sold below. when considered totally of capital composition therefore, the rate of surplus value is able to be determined so as to measure the value of commodities:
<C = c + v + s
as regards your elevator analogy, its still true that the average is affected by varying quantities, so the rate of profit still equalises at the division of its total sum. but i will ask you - if 5 people are weighed, and the total is 500 kilograms, what is the average weight of the persons? what is true is that a larger sample size creates better results, but averages exist nonetheless.

so, by reading marx's words directly (i.e. total price = total value), have you accepted that the ratio of values in exchange are measured by SNLT in prices, and that this is how marx intended himself to be interpreted? if not, may you explain why? thanks. 🙂

>>2548723
Workers power within capitalism has very little to do with communism in that case. If this is true, why do MLs insist on political capture before the development of new economic relations?

>>2582249
🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

>>2582249
>whatever is sold above value must be balanced by what is sold below.

You said things are sold at value here:
>>2570972
>value is abstract labour
>exchange-value is the quantity of abstract labour
Just to make sure that you really intended to say that, you got asked by post >>2571815 this:
>You say here the ratios of abstract labor going into commodities is equal to their exchange ratios
And you replied:
>>2571906
>theyre the same thing
And later on, you said:
>>2582249
>price = exchange-value = SNLT
Yep, this is literally the same post where you then go on to say things exchange above their value and below it. By the value definition you gave (and have given again and again), this is impossible. Do you want to change your definition?

>>2583248
>You said things are sold at value
to marx, they are, as a component of total price matching total value, by the equalisation of the rate of profit. he writes this explicitly, and you havent denied it yet, so you must be growing in your reason.
>Do you want to change your definition?
its not my definition, its marx's. you have failed to give an alternative definition of "value" from exchange-value. i repeat:
<the sum of the prices of production of all commodities produced in society […] is equal to the sum of their values.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch09.htm
so then, total value = total price.
what can be more clear? (C = c + v + s)

but please, state your specific criticisms of what im writing, because i want to help you learn. 😮‍💨

>>2583336
>>2583336
>to marx, they are, as a component of total price matching total value, by the equalisation of the rate of profit. he writes this explicitly,
lol no he doesn't
please start saying "my interpretation of marx, who i havent read"

I HAVE REALIZED THE TRUTH OF HOW OUR WORLD WORKS
MAXIMUM POWER PRINCIPLE CAUSES THE RISE OF NATIONS
CATABOLLIC COLLAPSE CUASES THE FALL OF NATIONS
CREATIVE DESTRUCTION CAUSES THE REBIRTH OF NATIONS.
I REALIZE NOW I SEE

>>2584191
Im being unironic btw. (seriously I think this explains how the world kinda works)

>>2584191
maximum power principle
the nations who produce the most maximized and efficent energy usage and capture will be the ones who dominate
we saw this with rome, victorian era britain and modern usa
the industrial revolution for example being a great example of energy usage
then this keeps going
jevon paradox happens where the rise of more efficent and better energy usages
ends up causing more and more energy usage until finally reaching limits
then catabolic collapse happens
the only way such energy usage can be done is through complexliuty
complexity of political, economic and social institutions
this leads to losts of costs (corruption, maintenance or other costs)
eventually as growth reaches the limits, costs will now become greater than growth
and thus the nation starts decaying
it starts collapsing
and then finally creative destruction
as old socio political economic institutions and ideas die off, new ones will take their place
and thus the cycle begins anew with new nations that have new ideas and instritutions replacing old nations and their old ideas plus institutions
the cycle repeats

>>2584203
>>2584191
in "econophysics" terms, we can say that productive labour conserves energy, while unproductive labour expends free energy. creating complexity requires a closed system to regenerate itself, while also increasing energy transfer. if we put too much energy into one sector (e.g. invest too much capital), it burns out (loses profit) and causes the system to shut down (like how watering one plant kills the garden, and the plant itself). if we transfer energy to different sectors we generate greater complexity (division of labour, or in keynesian terms, the marginal efficiency of capital) which is able to catalyse energy. so then, a closed system is necessary, but not too closed, since it breaks the circuit. creating more circuits creates a positive feedback loop which amplifies efficiency.
>>2584174
interpret this statement for me:
<the sum of the prices of production of all commodities produced in society […] is equal to the sum of their values.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch09.htm
total price = total value
it shouldnt be controversial, since this is the prevailing conclusion of smith, ricardo and jevons. its also economic common sense to austrian economists, since one cannot produce without means of creating value (i.e. utility is the limit of production - j.b. say, 1802) due to economic faculties. so you appear to be denying something every economist is forced to agree on, including marx, yet you do this to defend marx? as i say, you are confused, but not just confused; irrational.

>>2584174
You see, Smith Anon does not distinguish how different averages work. It's all a big mess in his head. Here is the solution (not very complicated, but he probably won't read it because he is a seething butthurt narcissist): There are time averages and parts averages.

Time average: We follow something over time and look at its average state (conceptually such always exists, but it might not be an actually happening state you can point at and say "now").
Parts average: We divide some sum between components that in aggregate make up the sum to get the average part (again it conceptually exists, but not necessarily in the sense of something you can point at).

If we imagine a very stupid person, we can imagine that person to be stunned by this distinction, because sometimes making the distinction is not necessary. Suppose a thousand people are all doing coin flips. Assuming unbiased coins, whether we check the time average of one guy doing the experiments or check a snapshot of the group, we can expect the data to look about the same. (By the way, processes that have the property that both checks amount to the same are called ergodic processes. Is capitalism ergodic? No.)

The average Marx talked about in the bit that perplexes Smith Anon is a parts average (as was gracefully and tastefully alluded to in post >>2582003 with the elevator story).

In Capital III, Marx worked with a model that assumes that profit rates equalize. It's a good question how strong the tendency of profit to equalize really is and so it's also a good question how useful that model is. Either way, the parts average exists, irrespective of how strong or weak the profit-rate equalizing tendency is because it is a MOTHAFUKEN PARTS AVERAGE.

Now, how does the model with the equalized profit rates fit together with assuming prices proportional to value? In short, these two do not fit together well and Marx did not believe they do. The stronger the tendency of profit rates to equalize, the more price ratios diverge from labor-input ratios. This is due to different organic composition of capital in different firms. If we counterfactually assume equal organic composition everywhere, we can have equalized profit rates and prices proportional to value. And this is how what is presented in Capital I fits into the model of analysis in Capital III.

>>2584653
>it shouldnt be controversial
but thats not what things sell at their value means, and things(individual commodities) do not sell at their value as reflected in price. total price = total value means that while they have a price, which is an average, they still sell above or below their value, but in the aggregate these deviations wash out.

this is really easy to understand if you dont incorrectly conflate price and value

>>2585182
>Now, how does the model with the equalized profit rates fit together with assuming prices proportional to value? In short, these two do not fit together well and Marx did not believe they do. The stronger the tendency of profit rates to equalize, the more price ratios diverge from labor-input ratios
interpret this statement from marx:
<the sum of the prices of production of all commodities produced in society […] is equal to the sum of their values.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch09.htm
what does this mean to you?
>>2585425
>conflate price and value
total price and value are the same thing to marx, the same as every other economist. we cant progress until this fact is admitted.

>>2585425
>>2585891
to skip ahead, since total price = total value,
the exchange-value (price) of commodities is equal to the ratio of the values of commodities, which is what this entire dispute is about. to marx, values are able to be measured by SNLT, but >>2585182 disagrees, claiming that the ratios of value (which he doesnt define) is different from the ratio of values in exchange (Ax = By). as i have endlessly demonstrated, this is an unfounded perspective. he rejects the words of marx in order to defend marx from himself - its pathological, and you seem to be feeding into it. sad.

>>2585891
>total price and value are the same thing to marx
which is not the same thing as individual price and individual value

>>2586025
who invoked individual prices and values?
the theory of value is inherently macroeconomic, since it attests to the prices of production regulating the equilibrium, by market competition within a selected time-frame. if we read smith, he says that the market price ought to coincide with the natural price given a certain amount of time where competition levels out fluctuation. this would require "commodity" considered generally. marx attests to the soundness of this idea by his reference to thomas tooke's "history of prices" (1857) in "value, price and profit" (1865), where he says that smith's hypothesis proves correct. in murray rothbard's critique of smith , he submits to the notion of general equilibrium by what he calls "long-term normal price". so the inclusion of duration into the concept shows its macroeconomic focus. jevons (1871) considers economy in the same macroeconomic fashion, and its only the austrians by their "microeconomic" or "individualist" methodology that converts empirical proofs for rational axioms. rothbard shows particular frustration at smith for claiming that diamonds inexplicably sell higher than water, and rothbard includes the individual case of a man dying in a desert. an issue in this line of reasoning (which is implicitly humorous) is that rothbard is in some way always assuming disequilibrium, and so an inherently chaotic market. yes, water can sell higher than diamonds, but never in the general sense. its this refusal of the general commodity which is ridiculous.