/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2612840
Usury should just be abolished

Because it is correct.

>>2612840
Whats and ltv?

>>2612852
LTV means Light Television. Basically any TV which emits light. So all of them. It's an archaic word originating from the 1650s back when most TVs had actual little people in them performing live.

>>2612840
Because most people see Marxism as theology, not as economics. They want to memorise their catechism, not think.

>>2612840
Who's "we," uygha? We are Marxists here. We read more books in a year than you do in your entire lifetime.

>>2612864
>We are Marxists here
I am not.
>We read more books in a year
I haven't read a single book all year.

>>2612852
"labor theory of value," words marx never uttered, but got applied to him in retrospect by bourgeois economists who wanted to lump him in with the "classical" theorists like Ben Franklin, Adam Smith and David Ricardo, since Marx derived a lot of his material from theirs, and because they had a labor theory of value. Marx's theory of value is one of socially necessary labor time, not simply "labor," Marx also refuted the Lassallean formula of labor being entitled to all the value it produces.

Because muh mudpies are used to divorce workers from the value they create

>>2612864
A man who reads books does not boast about the volume of his reading.

the marginalist theory of wages proves the exploitation of labour by surplus duration, since wages are received by diminishing returns to the marginal product (and by inverse proportion to total product). the populariser of marginal utility theory (william stanley jevons, 1871) says this directly in his "theory of political economy", chapter 4, section 25 (fig. viii) and writes directly here:
>Evidence to the like effect is found in the general tendency to reduce the hours of labour at the present day, owing to the improved real wages now enjoyed by those employed in mills and factories.
<the theory of political economy - chapter 5, section 5
so then, lower hours comport to greater wages, while longer hours means lesser wages. this same dynamic represents the threshold between marx's "necessary" and "surplus" labour regulating the working day; so to say, profit (as a deduction from potential wages) is attributed by marginalism as deriving from an extension of the working day beyond its means of reproduction, or what marx calls the value of labour:
<I demand the normal working-day because I, like every other seller, demand the value of my commodity.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm
so all economists basically agree on this issue.

>>2612918
the theory of SNLT is expressly ricardian

>>2612918
The SNLT is the LTV but revised. It follows the same logic with a few tweaks.

>>2612996
Interesting. So you don't even need the SNLT to use the exploitation theory ?

>>2612864
>We are charlie kirk

>>2612840
what ltv?
I don't see anyone defending the adam smith version
I do see people defend the marxist ltv because it accurately describes reality. if a person needs 5 hours of work to sustain themselves but then works (or is made to) for 5 hours more, then there will be a surplus, and how that surplus is produced (what motivates the person to perform the additional work) and how it is distributed (who gets it) is what defines a society and it's politics. the marxist theory is useful because it approaches economy from that perspective

bourgeois economists may arrive at similar conclusions sometimes, but ultimately their objective isn't to study or understand these social relations, it is to optimize them

>>2613177
whats indefensible about adam smith, exactly?
>>2613018
it depends on how you define "exploitation" of course, since its such a loaded term, but the idea that profit comes from unpaid labour or diminished wage of the labourer is a seemingly universal conclusion of economics; its only metaphysical disputes that block the way from more imperative matters, such as the ethical concerns over who should possess the profit of industry.

the anarcho-capitalist hans hermann hoppe for example states that while marx is basically correct as the origin of profit, the capitalist deserves it since he has lower "time preference" and thus contracts profit as interest on his initial investment:
<What is wrong with Marx’s theory of exploitation, then, is that he does not understand the phenomenon of time preference as a universal category of human action. That the laborer does not receive his “full worth” has nothing to do with exploitation but merely reflects the fact that it is impossible for man to exchange future goods against present ones except at a discount.
https://mises.org/mises-wire/marxist-and-austrian-class-analysis
his idea here is that the capitalist credits the worker with a present payment in wages, which permits profit as a future reward (i.e. the capitalist does not "create" profit, yet he is owed it). interestingly, marx makes the exact opposite argument here:
<In every country in which the capitalist mode of production reigns, it is the custom not to pay for labour-power before it has been exercised for the period fixed by the contract, as for example, the end of each week. In all cases, therefore, the use-value of the labour-power is advanced to the capitalist: the labourer allows the buyer to consume it before he receives payment of the price; he everywhere gives credit to the capitalist.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm
everyone who has worked a job before knows that you are paid after, not before, the work assigned, thus as marx says, its the worker who credits the capitalist, not the other way round. from the perspective of interest then, profit appears as unpaid interest from the principle given by labour. so then, if anyone is "owed" the profit of industry, its the worker. marx makes another argument however, that the contract assigns property by right, and so profit is owed to the capitalist, but only by mediated class struggle:
>This sphere that we are deserting, within whose boundaries the sale and purchase of labour-power goes on, is in fact a very Eden of the innate rights of man. There alone rule Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm
<The capitalist maintains his rights as a purchaser when he tries to make the working-day as long as possible, and to make, whenever possible, two working-days out of one. On the other hand, the peculiar nature of the commodity sold implies a limit to its consumption by the purchaser, and the labourer maintains his right as seller when he wishes to reduce the working-day to one of definite normal duration. There is here, therefore, an antinomy, right against right, both equally bearing the seal of the law of exchanges.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm
so then, the terms of labour are literally contracted by the terms of bargaining, which confers upon production, the equal rights of buyer and seller (i.e. workers are only owed what they may sell, and capitalists are only owed what they buy).

>>2613191
>whats indefensible about adam smith, exactly?
?
I just don't see people defending it because no one cares. his ltv was a hypothesis about how a robinson crusoe would allocate work

>so then, the terms of labour are literally contracted by the terms of bargaining
yes and no. labor is a special commodity in that it can produce more than it costs to replenish, it explains it in that same text you are quoting (are you using ai? because you seem to be quoting without reading the preceding or subsequent paragraphs). in the most simple terms, it only takes 4 hours of work to keep you alive and healthy, but you can work for 8 hours. therefore the usual price for your labor will oscillate between 4 and (lim x -> 8). for the bargain to even make sense you have to be exploited: it wouldn't make sense to employ someone that can barely produce enough to sustain themselves. exploited in the marxist sense doesn't necessarily mean suffering or bad conditions, only that some of the value your labor produced is appropriated by someone else
<The minimum limit of the value of labour-power is determined by the value of the commodities, without the daily supply of which the labourer cannot renew his vital energy, consequently by the value of those means of subsistence that are physically indispensable. If the price of labour-power fall to this minimum, it falls below its value, since under such circumstances it can be maintained and developed only in a crippled state. But the value of every commodity is determined by the labour-time requisite to turn it out so as to be of normal quality.
<Let us examine the matter more closely. The value of a day’s labour-power amounts to 3 shillings, because on our assumption half a day’s labour is embodied in that quantity of labour-power, i.e., because the means of subsistence that are daily required for the production of labour-power, cost half a day’s labour. But the past labour that is embodied in the labour-power, and the living labour that it can call into action; the daily cost of maintaining it, and its daily expenditure in work, are two totally different things. The former determines the exchange-value of the labour-power, the latter is its use-value. The fact that half a day’s labour is necessary to keep the labourer alive during 24 hours, does not in any way prevent him from working a whole day. Therefore, the value of labour-power, and the value which that labour-power creates in the labour-process, are two entirely different magnitudes; and this difference of the two values was what the capitalist had in view, when he was purchasing the labour-power. The useful qualities that labour-power possesses, and by virtue of which it makes yarn or boots, were to him nothing more than a conditio sine qua non; for in order to create value, labour must be expended in a useful manner. What really influenced him was the specific use-value which this commodity possesses of being a source not only of value, but of more value than it has itself. This is the special service that the capitalist expects from labour-power, and in this transaction he acts in accordance with the “eternal laws” of the exchange of commodities. The seller of labour-power, like the seller of any other commodity, realises its exchange-value, and parts with its use-value. He cannot take the one without giving the other. The use-value of labour-power, or in other words, labour, belongs just as little to its seller, as the use-value of oil after it has been sold belongs to the dealer who has sold it. The owner of the money has paid the value of a day’s labour-power; his, therefore, is the use of it for a day; a day’s labour belongs to him. The circumstance, that on the one hand the daily sustenance of labour-power costs only half a day’s labour, while on the other hand the very same labour-power can work during a whole day, that consequently the value which its use during one day creates, is double what he pays for that use, this circumstance is, without doubt, a piece of good luck for the buyer, but by no means an injury to the seller.

and man I didn't remember this banger

We assumed, on the occasion of its sale, that the value of a day’s labour-power is three shillings, and that six hours’ labour is incorporated in that sum; and consequently that this amount of labour is requisite to produce the necessaries of life daily required on an average by the labourer. If now our spinner by working for one hour, can convert 1 2/3 lbs. of cotton into 1 2/3 lbs. of yarn, it follows that in six hours he will convert 10 lbs. of cotton into 10 lbs. of yarn. Hence, during the spinning process, the cotton absorbs six hours’ labour. The same quantity of labour is also embodied in a piece of gold of the value of three shillings. Consequently by the mere labour of spinning, a value of three shillings is added to the cotton.

Let us now consider the total value of the product, the 10 lbs. of yarn. Two and a half days’ labour has been embodied in it, of which two days were contained in the cotton and in the substance of the spindle worn away, and half a day was absorbed during the process of spinning. This two and a half days’ labour is also represented by a piece of gold of the value of fifteen shillings. Hence, fifteen shillings is an adequate price for the 10 lbs. of yarn, or the price of one pound is eighteen pence.

Our capitalist stares in astonishment. The value of the product is exactly equal to the value of the capital advanced. The value so advanced has not expanded, no surplus-value has been created, and consequently money has not been converted into capital. The price of the yarn is fifteen shillings, and fifteen shillings were spent in the open market upon the constituent elements of the product, or, what amounts to the same thing, upon the factors of the labour-process; ten shillings were paid for the cotton, two shillings for the substance of the spindle worn away, and three shillings for the labour-power. The swollen value of the yarn is of no avail, for it is merely the sum of the values formerly existing in the cotton, the spindle, and the labour-power: out of such a simple addition of existing values, no surplus-value can possibly arise. [13] These separate values are now all concentrated in one thing; but so they were also in the sum of fifteen shillings, before it was split up into three parts, by the purchase of the commodities.

There is in reality nothing very strange in this result. The value of one pound of yarn being eighteen pence, if our capitalist buys 10 lbs. of yarn in the market, he must pay fifteen shillings for them. It is clear that, whether a man buys his house ready built, or gets it built for him, in neither case will the mode of acquisition increase the amount of money laid out on the house.

Our capitalist, who is at home in his vulgar economy, exclaims: “Oh! but I advanced my money for the express purpose of making more money.” The way to Hell is paved with good intentions, and he might just as easily have intended to make money, without producing at all. He threatens all sorts of things. He won’t be caught napping again. In future he will buy the commodities in the market, instead of manufacturing them himself. But if all his brother capitalists were to do the same, where would he find his commodities in the market? And his money he cannot eat. He tries persuasion. “Consider my abstinence; I might have played ducks and drakes with the 15 shillings; but instead of that I consumed it productively, and made yarn with it.” Very well, and by way of reward he is now in possession of good yarn instead of a bad conscience; and as for playing the part of a miser, it would never do for him to relapse into such bad ways as that; we have seen before to what results such asceticism leads. Besides, where nothing is, the king has lost his rights; whatever may be the merit of his abstinence, there is nothing wherewith specially to remunerate it, because the value of the product is merely the sum of the values of the commodities that were thrown into the process of production. Let him therefore console himself with the reflection that virtue is its own reward. But no, he becomes importunate. He says: “The yarn is of no use to me: I produced it for sale.” In that case let him sell it, or, still better, let him for the future produce only things for satisfying his personal wants, a remedy that his physician MacCulloch has already prescribed as infallible against an epidemic of over-production. He now gets obstinate. “Can the labourer,” he asks, “merely with his arms and legs, produce commodities out of nothing? Did I not supply him with the materials, by means of which, and in which alone, his labour could be embodied? And as the greater part of society consists of such ne’er-do-wells, have I not rendered society incalculable service by my instruments of production, my cotton and my spindle, and not only society, but the labourer also, whom in addition I have provided with the necessaries of life? And am I to be allowed nothing in return for all this service?” Well, but has not the labourer rendered him the equivalent service of changing his cotton and spindle into yarn? Moreover, there is here no question of service. A service is nothing more than the useful effect of a use-value, be it of a commodity, or be it of labour. But here we are dealing with exchange-value. The capitalist paid to the labourer a value of 3 shillings, and the labourer gave him back an exact equivalent in the value of 3 shillings, added by him to the cotton: he gave him value for value. Our friend, up to this time so purse-proud, suddenly assumes the modest demeanour of his own workman, and exclaims: “Have I myself not worked? Have I not performed the labour of superintendence and of overlooking the spinner? And does not this labour, too, create value?” His overlooker and his manager try to hide their smiles. Meanwhile, after a hearty laugh, he re-assumes his usual mien. Though he chanted to us the whole creed of the economists, in reality, he says, he would not give a brass farthing for it. He leaves this and all such like subterfuges and juggling tricks to the professors of Political Economy, who are paid for it. He himself is a practical man; and though he does not always consider what he says outside his business, yet in his business he knows what he is about.

>>2613223
marx and engels say that adam smith had discovered the source of surplus value.
>for the bargain to even make sense you have to be exploited
yes, which is the scene of class struggle thst reveals capital's immanent contradictions, like the liberals who promote self-government yet want the state to clamp down on unions.

you don't need any value theory at all to notice Porky gets paid more than proles. the secret vol III realization is that Marxian values are marginal

>>2612996
>so all economists basically agree on this issue.
then why do so many of them make a career out of denying it and obfuscating it? And imo the Jevonist formulation of exploitation isn't nearly as intuitive as the Marxist.

>>2612844
Rent, Interest, and Profit should all be abolished immediately, to establish socialism. Wages eventually, to establish Communism.

>>2612918
>Marx also refuted the Lassallean formula of labor being entitled to all the value it produces
When did he do this

>>2613731
Critique of the Gotha programme

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

>>2613731
29:09

>>2613731
>>2613735
>>2613737
Exact quote where he specifically talks about deductions. I'll put the most important part in highlight

Here is Lassalle:

>3. "The emancipation of labor demands the promotion of the instruments of labor to the common property of society and the co-operative regulation of the total labor, with a fair distribution of the proceeds of labor.

Marx's response:

<"Promotion of the instruments of labor to the common property" ought obviously to read their "conversion into the common property"; but this is only passing.

<What are the "proceeds of labor"? The product of labor, or its value? And in the latter case, is it the total value of the product, or only that part of the value which labor has newly added to the value of the means of production consumed?

<"Proceeds of labor" is a loose notion which Lassalle has put in the place of definite economic conceptions.

<What is "a fair distribution"?

<Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And is it not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones? Have not also the socialist sectarians the most varied notions about "fair" distribution?

<To understand what is implied in this connection by the phrase "fair distribution", we must take the first paragraph and this one together. The latter presupposes a society wherein the instruments of labor are common property and the total labor is co-operatively regulated, and from the first paragraph we learn that "the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society."

<"To all members of society"? To those who do not work as well? What remains then of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor? Only to those members of society who work? What remains then of the "equal right" of all members of society?

<But "all members of society" and "equal right" are obviously mere phrases. The kernel consists in this, that in this communist society every worker must receive the "undiminished" Lassallean "proceeds of labor".

<Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.

<From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

<These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

<There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.

<Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.

Marx considered that disabled people, for example w,ill receive proceeds of labor.

>>2613731
dude just tread Marx
you need to deduct for all sorts of things, much of that is already done nowadays

the big issue is of Course the shitty boojwa still takes his cut like a mafioso

>>2613177
That's not the SNLT. That's the exploitation theory, which uses the SNLT.
Economists don't use the SNLT precisely because it's an easy way to say "huh look, the SNLT is wrong thus the exploitation theory is also wrong". But in reality, the marginalist theory can also be used to satisfy the exploitation theory.

>>2613784
>it's an easy way to say
it is also easy to say that the earth is flat because I see the horizon and it is flat. are going to stop defending the planetary model because of that?

>>2613729
>then why do so many of them make a career out of denying it and obfuscating it?
we have to first consider that most economists are probably not very well-read. "unlearning economics" himself (a very popular leftist economist) has admitted to not actually reading marx's capital (or smith's wealth of nations, or ricardo's principles of political economy), even though he has made criticisms of the LTV (a troubling sign is also when people constantly reference secondary sources rather than the primary source, such as most video essayists tend to do). you can see the rusty wheels turn when people take it as a given that the LTV has been "disproven"; as yet, marx qualifies his theory by a ricardian safeguard:
>If a commodity were in no way useful, - in other words, if it could in no way contribute to our gratification, - it would be destitute of exchangeable value, however scarce it might be, or whatever quantity of labour might be necessary to procure it.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/ricardo/tax/ch01.htm
<Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
thus, the "mudpie" argument can only come from illiteracy. this was once admitted by austrian economist bob murphy in a conversation with steve keen (someone else i would say is not very well-read despite his public image). bob said that he has never read marx, yet attempted to debunk marx by stating that you cannot exchange two equivalent values, but only unequal values, since trade is axiomatic of mutual benefit. of course, bob's issue is that marx does in fact state this, but again, contextualises it in the notion of unequal use-values with equivalent exchange-values. even carl menger (the founder of austrian economics, 1871) passes over adam smith with an unfounded criticism, that smith could not apparently locate the origins of trade, despite menger then using smith's exact argument; the same idea which marx has, that trade begins by surplus production (or what menger properly characterises as a use-value transforming into an exchange-value). in an informal debate, neema parvini (a supposed economic expert) could not actually define the variables of marx's formula for the value of capitalist commodities (C = c + v + s), despite arguing against the LTV (leading to extremely petulant responses and an eventual apology). neema has actually become more sympathetic to marx as of late, reading people like paul cockshott. this is quite a common theme, then.

the opposite problem also exists, where marxists themselves may not have read marx, or elsewise fail to communicate him properly. in an informal debate, vincent magarino (a learned man) against an anarcho-capitalist, "liquidzulu", failed to coherently discuss marx's theory of value, leading to a failure of conversation, whose burden of responsibility was on victor. there is also the academic marxist david harvey who appears to misinterpret marx in his books and articles, or elsewise fails to communicate the meaning of marx, leading to greater confusion for everybody.

in all this appears to be the underestimation of marx, and also the over-estimation of various online personalities. a good critic of marx is actually eugen bohm-bawerk, who correctly sees the contradiction between the first and third volume of marx's capital in the theory of value (which is a contradiction mediated by marx's equation of total price with total value in the spheres of social capital). another anti-marxist like murray rothbard does actually target adam smith in particular for formalising the LTV (something rothbard idiotically attributes the cause of blame for millions of dead upon). he does in fact submit to smith's "natural price" as the "long-term normal price" however, emphatically stating that although there is a tendency for equilibrium (between supply and demand, or the cost of production with the cost of commodities) it is never fixed; here again, rothbard is unwarrantingly derisive against smith, since smith says the exact same thing; that the natural price of commodities is a centre of gravity, but is never a singularity of their ultimate price. thus, there is the politicisation of the polemic which denies the means to be objective, since without the bias, people actually end up agreeing with each other (since economic phenomena only has one empirical reality). 😅🤷🏻‍♂️

>jevons
the point on jevons is to show how theories of value cannot supersede economic reality, since they ultimately come to the same conclusion; the difference would be how we are able to discuss it. smith would say workers are underpaid, marx would say that workers are paid, then unpaid. jevons would say that workers are paid at the rate of their marginal product, which is determined by labour-time. its all the same thing, really.

>>2613869
>vincent magarino
Victor. he's also very well read on this so I doubt he was unable to explain things. I think I've even listened to this particular "debate" and as I recall Victor just kept explaining the very basics to Zulu. you can't get anywhere with someone who has not read the works in question. perhaps Victor forgot some things, which is understandable. Marx is very subtle at times

>>2613872
victor failed to distinguish between use-value and exchange-value, which is the biggest hurdle against any austrian thinker. its this initial irresponsibility which led to 2 hours of meandering back-and-forth.

>>2612840
>Why do we even try to defend the LTV ?
Dogmatism

Am I right that: Marx say that any exchange is exploitative. So say SNLT is 2 h/day for me, for you it can be more, if you like driving a car. A firm may be working at 0 profit, still it makes me work longer than 2 h/day. Also, if workers owned the means of production, I will just tell them to fuck off, I can't tell that to police.. they can't make me work longer. But say it is a coop. I will still need to work longer than 2 h/da in coop, thus still make bourge happy.

The marginal theory seem to miss that.

>>2613729
>>2613869
as an example of a "given" perspective that marx was wrong, we can watch vidrel, where Agent Kochinski says that marx was simply incorrect on things, but provides no actual examples. unsurprisingly, the clip begins by Agent Kochinski saying that he doesnt really respect reading, so.

>>2613880
no, exchange is not exploitative, since to marx, the wage is the value of labour-power. exploitation occurs in production, where labour-power is consumed so as to produce use-value beyond its exchange-value.

>>2613874
I don't remember him doing that but you may be right. I don't feel like re-listening it so I'll trust your word on it
>>2613880
exchange isn't exploitative. for Marx, exploitation happens in production, not exchange

>>2613885
Yes, I just found this, it is not Marx, but a summary of him
>it occurs even when all commodities, including labor-power, are bought and sold at their values.

I undertood it as: even if no profit or value_of_all_things_you_made = wage.

>>2613899
Not saying it is made in exchange. But as I understood, there always will be exploitation _if you sell yourself_. You will always make more than you consumed. But not necessary the firm will be profitable.

>>2613910
>Not saying it is made in exchange. But as I understood, there always will be exploitation _if you sell yourself_. You will always make more than you consumed. But not necessary the firm will be profitable.
this is not necessarily true. self-employed consultants come to mind

Falsifier thread general

>>2613910
this is what marx writes on exchange:
>This sphere that we are deserting, within whose boundaries the sale and purchase of labour-power goes on, is in fact a very Eden of the innate rights of man. There alone rule Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham. Freedom, because both buyer and seller of a commodity, say of labour-power, are constrained only by their own free will. They contract as free agents, and the agreement they come to, is but the form in which they give legal expression to their common will. Equality, because each enters into relation with the other, as with a simple owner of commodities, and they exchange equivalent for equivalent. Property, because each disposes only of what is his own. And Bentham, because each looks only to himself. The only force that brings them together and puts them in relation with each other, is the selfishness, the gain and the private interests of each. Each looks to himself only, and no one troubles himself about the rest, and just because they do so, do they all, in accordance with the pre-established harmony of things, or under the auspices of an all-shrewd providence, work together to their mutual advantage, for the common weal and in the interest of all.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm
<The capitalist maintains his rights as a purchaser when he tries to make the working-day as long as possible, and to make, whenever possible, two working-days out of one. On the other hand, the peculiar nature of the commodity sold implies a limit to its consumption by the purchaser, and the labourer maintains his right as seller when he wishes to reduce the working-day to one of definite normal duration. There is here, therefore, an antinomy, right against right, both equally bearing the seal of the law of exchanges.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm
so, marx considers no misgivings in the sphere of exchange itself, but only in the illusion which exchange itself creates (e.g. the "goldeuyghs" which money births):
<Because it is value, it has acquired the occult quality of being able to add value to itself. It brings forth living offspring, or, at the least, lays goldeuyghs.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch04.htm

Because it makes for decent counter propaganda because it’s right? Why not?

It's all bullshit and everyone knows it

>>2613973
Mods, permaban him for suggesting that bordigism is a thing.

>>2613775
>What are the "proceeds of labor"? The product of labor, or its value? And in the latter case, is it the total value of the product, or only that part of the value which labor has newly added to the value of the means of production consumed?
It's so important that Marx narrows down these distinctions when dunking on Lassalle for vagueness, and yet on here you'll often see the exact same mistakes being made, due to a total lack of theoretical clarity.

>>2613869
>a troubling sign is also when people constantly reference secondary sources rather than the primary source, such as most video essayists tend to do
it doesn't help that glowiepedia will only accept a claim if you quote it in a secondary source and explicitly disallows you from using primary sources, leading to the proliferation of secondary references.

>>2613985
Bordigus Enjoyers =/= 'Bordigism' (which is not a thing at all)

>>2613869
> there is also the academic marxist david harvey who appears to misinterpret marx in his books and articles, or elsewise fails to communicate the meaning of marx, leading to greater confusion for everybody.
I am quite thankful to the several people on here for telling me to stop listening to Harvey before I got my head full of nonsense.

Very good post, thank you.

>>2613869
Anon, I am a stupid bumpkin. So forgive my direct question: should I believe in the LTV or not?

>>2613874
>victor failed to distinguish between use-value and exchange-value, which is the biggest hurdle against any austrian thinker.
omg lol, I watched that one. It was so frustrating.

>>2614049
>believe
LTV operates independently of your belief so your question is irrelevant. Should you accept it? Yes.

Useful-Labor-Time Theory of Excahnge-Value is more accurate but doesn't roll off the tongue

>>2612840
>Why do we even try to defend the LTV ?
Because it's correct?

>>2614052
Ok. So it IS correct.

>>2612840
Because according to learned comrades, it IS correct.

>>2613869
>the natural price of commodities is a centre of gravity, but is never a singularity of their ultimate price

what does "singularity of their ultimate price" mean? and how is it different from "center of gravity?"

>>2613869
> theories of value cannot supersede economic reality, since they ultimately come to the same conclusion; the difference would be how we are able to discuss it. smith would say workers are underpaid, marx would say that workers are paid, then unpaid. jevons would say that workers are paid at the rate of their marginal product, which is determined by labour-time. its all the same thing, really.

For Smith, value is anchored (imperfectly) in labor, right? Profits and rents are deductions from what labor produces. Exploitation is intuitive but not rigorously theorized. Smith lacks a clear mechanism explaining why labor systematically gets less. For Marx, Value is socially necessary labor time. Exploitation is structural, not moral. Surplus value arises because labor power is a commodity whose use-value exceeds its exchange value. For Marx, the unpaid surplus labor is not just a description, it is the engine of profit.

Doesn't Jevons explicitly reject labor-time as the determinant of value? For Jevons, value comes from marginal utility, not labor time. Wages equal marginal product because of subjective preferences and scarcity, not because of labor-time. Labor-time only matters insofar as it affects supply. So while marginalism can describe similar wage outcomes, it explains them using an entirely different causal framework.

This is why Marx explicitly criticizes marginalist-style reasoning before it fully existed: it treats value as arising at the margin of exchange rather than in production. Marx sees value as only realized in exchange, but produced in production by the exploitation of labor power. The contradiction here is a failure to distinguish between potential and realized value sometimes. Labor produces potential exchange-value.

The magnitude of this potential exchange value is determined by socially necessary labor-time. Surplus labor produces potential surplus-value. None of this yet has social validity. Exchange realizes (or fails to realize) that potential. Only when the commodity is sold does labor prove socially necessary ex post. My question is now: Do unsold commodities retroactively invalidate the labor that produced them? Probably not. That smacks of spooky action at a distance. It's just that the value isn't realized in exchange.

>>2614049
>should I believe in the LTV or not?
if you find its explanation for economic reality most persuasive, then thats up to you, not me. as long as you can argue your own points, then you have comprehension.
>>2614058
what i mean is that equilibrium is a tendency, not an absolute trend.
>>2614078
>Smith lacks a clear mechanism explaining why labor systematically gets less.
to smith, its a class concept based in different revenues; wages go to labour, profits to capital, rents to land. wages rise where capital competes, wages decline where labour competes, etc. he says in the wealth of nations, book 1, chapter 9, that the reason wages rise in cities is because of increased productivity and the demand for labour by capitalists; the inverse being monopoly, where wages are decreased. in the conclusion to book 1, he says this:
<the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin. The interest of this third order, therefore, has not the same connection with the general interest of the society as that of the other two.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch11c-3.htm
ricardo later formalises the law of rents to explain this point further; that rent increases at the margin of its productivity - thus, rents increase with the wealth of society; they are simply appropriated by a class of landlords who do not work for it:
<As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch06.htm
so smith saw that the rate of profit (or interest) declines in proportion to a rise in wages (as he records from the time of henry viii), which is continuous of the employment and competition of capitals. the worker gets more, the more that capital is able to be invested (e.g. by comparative advantage, an extrapolation of the division of labour), and gets less where capital contracts into monopoly (e.g. with rising prices for commodities). thus as smith says, the rate of profit is highest in poor countries and lowest in rich countries, since wages are related to this revenue by proportion. there is not a "natural" mechanism in smith's view which determines this relationship, but it only exists as a social tendency. marx also sees the same thing, where in the manifesto, he says that while the capitalist is driven to improve the means of production, he is also has the interest of demolishing progress to preserve power:
<The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm
>Exploitation is structural, not moral
well, its the same difference. both smith and marx promote the worker's self-interest over the capitalists'.
>Doesn't Jevons explicitly reject labor-time as the determinant of value?
well, he quantifies units of labour (L) by two factors; duration and intensity, which contribute to the "disutility" incurred by the labourer, which equilibrates to its marginal product (i.e. the wage). thats why after a short time, there is appreciated value, but after a long time, a depreciated value, since one is working longer and harder for less. on the notion of value generally, he contextualises ricardo in like fashion:
(i) Cost of production determines supply.
(ii) Supply determines final degree of utility.
(iii) Final degree of utility determines value.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/jevons-the-theory-of-political-economy#lf0237_head_054
so although the marginal utility of the product is its "value", the cause of such value is the supply given by production.
>Wages equal marginal product because of subjective preferences and scarcity, not because of labor-time
no, as i said, jevons measures labour by duration and intensity (or labour-time and its product). jevons as a utilitarian sees the act of labour as equally subject to diminishing returns as any other product.
>arising at the margin of exchange rather than in production
jevons connects the rate of exchange to the rate of production, as i cite above.
>The contradiction here is a failure to distinguish between potential and realized value sometimes
to me, a "potential" value is already a contradiction in terms, as i have previously discussed here: >>2604376
marx at least says that value's realisation is retroactive, not prospective:
<Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
perhaps its my british sensibility, but i find it hard to fathom of a being with existence, but still lacking an integral reality, since they simply appear to be synonyms.
>Do unsold commodities retroactively invalidate the labor that produced them?
i believe harvey uses the term "anti-value" to denote this relationship. various writers have also focused on the privatisation of waste as a locus of capitalist subjectivity (e.g. bataille and mcgowan); like how keynes says that to have a little bit of debt makes one poor, yet to have lots of debt makes one rich. if a company controls its profits by a reserve of waste, it maintains its position in the market (this is also why socialism could allow more abundance, since there would be no waste to sustain private power against the public interest).

OP suggests the LTV is a didactic metaphor rather than an empirically valid theory. This is false. The LTV is empirically valid.

Cockshott, Cottrell, Shaikh, and others demonstrate three things repeatedly and independently:

(a) Prices are statistically regulated by labour values

Using input–output tables for the UK, US, Greece, and other economies, they show that:

- Market prices cluster tightly around labour values
- Deviations are systematic, bounded, and predictable
- Labour values outperform alternative "value bases" in explanatory power
- Labour values are within ~9% of market prices
- Prices of production are within ~8%
- Linear labour-based approximations perform even better .

>>2614273
>labour values
but for marx, labor doesn't have value, labor power, as a commodity, has value, and that value is the subsistence of its period of duration. hence the value of a commodity corresponding to socially necessary labor time.

>>2614201
thank you anon. You truly are are a real one in a see of dimwits and midwits.

>>2614201
>perhaps its my british sensibility, but i find it hard to fathom of a being with existence, but still lacking an integral reality,
a traffic jam exists, but doesn't exist as a particular entity. you can watch as a traffic jam "moves" from the front to the back of a queue. Sound similarly moves through a medium but has not integral existence. Economic value is the same too, no? It circulates through a medium but is not physical.

>>2614388
everything is physical. even better, everything is a wave

>>2614395
does energy exist as an entity or does it only transfer between entities? in my understanding, Energy is more of a concept than an entity. It doesn’t “exist” as a thing on its own; rather, it’s a property of systems and objects that can be transferred, converted, or transformed between different forms. Potential energy is the energy stored in an object because of its position, condition, or state. It’s the energy an object has due to its potential to do work when its situation changes. I kind of see money is the matter of economics and value is the energy of economics. This is why I have no problem with "potential value" since Marx says value is created in production but realized in exchange.

>>2614400
>does energy exist
"energy" is just another way to say "time symmetry". it breaks at galactic scales

>>2614400
value has its own associated symmetry and conservation laws. it's very much real because social relations are real, because humans brains are real

>>2614388
well it depends on how substantial of a concept you consider "value" to be. the common usage of the term typically refers to the price of a commodity (e.g. value in exchange), but it also refers to the value of its utility (e.g. value in use). this internal division of value has been noted since aristotle's time (t. "rhetoric" 1.7):
<Further, what is rare is a greater good than what is plentiful. Thus, gold is a better thing than iron, though less useful: it is harder to get, and therefore better worth getting. Reversely, it may be argued that the plentiful is a better thing than the rare, because we can make more use of it. For what is often useful surpasses what is seldom useful, whence the saying: "The best of things is water."
this "paradox of value" is reproduced by smith (1776) and ricardo (1817):
<The word value, it is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called `value in use'; the other, `value in exchange.' The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or no value in exchange; and, on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use. Nothing is more useful than water: but it will purchase scarce anything; scarce anything can be had in exchange for it. A diamond, on the contrary, has scarce any value in use; but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/wealth-of-nations/book01/ch04.htm
jevons (1871) also tackles this by situating two types of utility; total and marginal utility:
<Thus I come to the conclusion that, in the use of the word value, three distinct meanings are habitually confused together, and require to be thus distinguished: (1) Value in use = total utility; (2) Esteem = final degree of utility [marginal utility]; (3) Purchasing power = ratio of exchange.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/jevons-the-theory-of-political-economy#lf0237_head_033
marx himself makes the same distinction, showing the universal problem. now that we have established this, we see that "value" is both problematised and resolved. the popular expression of "value" pertains to "value in exchange", or the ratio of exchange between items (i.e. price). price to me is a concrete phenomena, regulated by various factors. smith says that there are two prices of a commodity to consider; natural price and market price. natural price is the price of commodities at equilibrium (their cost of production) and the market price is determined by supply and demand at disequilibrium (e.g. recessive or excessive demand). these sorts of abstractions can at least be cursorily calculated by competition, so do not pertain to an intermediary existence, but rather an immediate reality of markets. i would say then we can speak certainly of prices (i.e. exchange-value), but thinking of value as apart from this seems irrational (i.e. value as potential, rather than actual price). now, you can speak of related factors, logistically, but this doesnt count for economic value, which is why marx writes:
<Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
so you can create products, but they are not valuable. i would say that taking certain things out of the market (e.g. for use in the public sector) is a necessary strategy for improving the public interest, but this at once often de-economises them; jevons for example in 1869 said that free public libraries multiplied social utility by allowing access to books without expense (where he considered the private collection of art and literature as destructively selfish). a contemporary analog would be the abolition of intellectual property to allow for the freedom of information, as opposed to its privatisation. economic value is then a concept bound to markets and private exchange (i.e. by prices), which is a relation that ought to be limited where it benefits "value in use" over "value in exchange". this can be tracked logistically without controversy. obviously if you are a marxist, you would want to get rid of markets altogether, so. 👍