[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo / 420 ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)

Check out our new store at shop.leftypol.org!


File: 1779321139410.png (18.04 MB, 2720x4168, ClipboardImage.png)

 

Ibn Khaldun already had a labor theory of value and theory of evolution in 1377:

https://traditionalhikma.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/The-Muqaddimah-by-Ibn-Khaldun-Translated-by-Franz-Rosenthal.pdf

Evolution:
>The animal world then widens, its species become numerous, and, in a gradual process of creation, it finally leads to man, who is able to think and to reflect. The higher stage of man is reached from the world of the monkeys, in which both sagacity and perception are found, but which has not reached the stage of actual reflection and thinking. At this point we come to the first stage of man after (the world of monkeys). This is as far as our (physical) observation extends.

Labor Theory of Value:
>Now, as we shall mention, labor is the real basis of profit. When labor is not appreciated and is done for nothing, the hope for profit vanishes, and no (productive) work is done. The sedentary population disperses, and civilization decays.

HOW WAS HE SO BASED?


He hated Blacks.

I love Ibn Khaldun

He invented race science that whitey still believes in, in the 21st century.

evoluution nor the LTV were crazy concepts, i'd argue both existed in some form in the roman period

Marx never claimed to have invented LTV, he was very clear about being a critic of the inconsistent LTV of Ricardo and Smith.

>Ibn Khaldun already had a labor theory of value and theory of evolution in 1377
so did Thomas Aquinas, who died before Ibn Khaldun was even born

>>2818714
Both are far better than the revisionist Karl Marx.

>>2818714
Did Tom also invent sociology?

>>2818714
Just price theory is not LTV you fool

>>2818672
>i'd argue both existed in some form in the roman period
elaborate

>>2818388
>and theory of evolution in 1377:
This is amazing.

>had a labor theory of value

This is retarded.

>>2818388
>At this point we come to the first stage of man after (the world of monkeys). This is as far as our (physical) observation extends.
Heraclitus already makes the same point (500 BCE):
<The wisest man is an ape compared to God, just as the most beautiful ape is ugly compared to man.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fragments_of_Heraclitus_(annotated)
>Now, as we shall mention, labor is the real basis of profit
Khaldun contradicts himself in Muqadimmah (Ch. V) as regards the nature of profit (ribh) as we may read from section IX:
<It should be known that commerce means the attempt to make a profit by increasing capital, through buying goods at a low price and selling them at a high price, whether these goods consist of slaves, grain, animals, weapons, or clothing material. The accrued (amount) is called "profit" (ribh). The attempt to make such a profit may be undertaken by storing goods and holding them until the market has fluctuated from low prices to high prices. […] Therefore, an old merchant said to a person who wanted to find out the truth about commerce: "I shall give it to you in two words: Buy cheap and sell dear.
https://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/Chapter5/Ch_5_09.htm
The classical LTV maintains that surplus labour leads to profit by selling goods at their value, not above their value. The "profit" incurred from labour is also used very generally as an adjective of gain, where "ma'ash" appears synonymous with ribh (Section II):
https://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/Chapter5/Ch_5_02.htm

>>2818714
>>2844087
Sources on Aquinas' theory of value can be give thricefold; "A Letter on Credit Sales and Usury" (1262), Summa ii.ii.77 (1274), Summa ii.ii.78 (1274). In the first case, Aquinas speaks of Just Price (worth/value) as opposed to "usury", which he defines as setting an additional price upon a good for the delay of payment. Aquinas later presents the injustice of this being in the lack of substance attached to time; he does not say what defines justice here, but only injustice, which is not selling a thing what it is worth. Later, we move on to the Summa - in the first case, Aquinas clearly borrows his viewpoint from Augustine (De Civ. Dei xi, 16, 426 CE):
<according to the utility each man finds in a thing, there are various standards of value, so that it comes to pass that we prefer some things that have no sensation to some sentient beings […] even when valued by men themselves (whose nature is certainly of the highest dignity), more is often given for a horse than for a slave, for a jewel than for a maid […] the former considers what value a thing in itself has in the scale of creation, while necessity considers how it meets its need
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120111.htm
Value to Augustine is thus twofold, between natural worth (in the order of creation by reason) and pleasure. Aquinas uses the same terminology in Summa ii.ii.77:
<the price of things salable does not depend on their degree of nature, since at times a horse fetches a higher price than a slave; but it depends on their usefulness to man.
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3077.htm
So then, price to Aquinas depends on usefulness, which is also directly caused by the substance of things:
<Gold and silver are costly not only on account of the usefulness of the vessels and other like things made from them, but also on account of the excellence and purity of their substance.
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3077.htm
This is relevant to earlier and later comments concerning usury, that since time does not add anything to objects, there can be no change in value. Further, the exchange of commodities to Aquinas implies the active consumption of substance, and whereby this is not done, there is a sale of non-existent things unjustly:
<Wherefore if he exacts more for the usufruct of a thing which has no other use but the consumption of its substance, he exacts a price of something non-existent: and so his exaction is unjust.
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3078.htm
This is similar to Marx's view, that the use-value of a commodity is only realised in its consumption:
<Use values become a reality only by use or consumption
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm
So, Aquinas does not directly relate the cause of useful substance to the primacy of labour, but imagines the independence of substances in their particular qualities.

>>2818388
Guanzi, Chapter 13: "Eight Observations" (《管子・八観第十三》). wealth would not be produced without people exerting efforts. All wealth under heaven grows out of exertion of strength; strength grows out of exertion of the physical body."
The Revival of Religious Knowledge (Ihya 'Ulum al-Din), Imam Al-Ghazali
a broker could hardly be able to dispense with telling lies, and overvaluing a commodity, just to publicize it on the one hand, and in view of the lack of adequate estimation of the work done in it, which sometimes might be little and sometimes much on the second hand, and it is not the work itself but the price of the sold thing that is given priority in assessing a broker's charge on the third hand. This is practice, which is, to be sure, a kind of injustice, for indeed, it is the amount of effort exerted that should be considered."


Unique IPs: 13

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo / 420 ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]