/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Of course the ruling class extracts a surplus of physical stuff. Theorizing about labor time is not necessary for seeing that. But I don't get how you can say "Surplus extraction is a pure metric of power. It calculates exactly blahblahblah" (sounds very LLMish tbh). A diverse bundle of thousands of different things appropriated by the ruling class is certainly not a metric. For a metric you would have to use something like the sum of prices or, well, the labor time going into these things.

Thank you for your ChatGPT revisionism

as the resident dengGOD, you are wrong, OP

>>2852433
>Whether the ultimate price of a commodity is determined by socially necessary labor time or subjective marginal utility, the physical reality of the power dynamic remains unchanged.
it's called labor theory of VALUE not ultimate price. come back when you know the difference between price and value.

OP is right that value is marginal. it's just that its marginal wrt social labour, not "utility". read Morishima

>>2852433
Welcome back John Roemer and Analytical Marxism.

>Surplus extraction is a function of material leverage, not the metaphysical origin of economic value.
Yes, precisely. All civilisations have the same basic model; the only choice then is, who does the work, and how much do people get paid?
>[workers] are physically forced to approach the capitalist to secure the means of their own survival
We can say that like how the state has a monopoly on violence, the capitalist holds a monopoly on production.
>the negotiation is absolutely asymmetrical […] This is not a voluntary transaction
It is voluntary, but it is also 'coercive'.
>the revenue the worker's output generates and the wage they receive is siphoned by the owner […] It is a survival tax, a toll the worker pays for the right to remain alive
This is the same in communist societies of course, that the "survival tax" is "work, or go to gulag". Communism begins with explicit threats, but capitalism has implicit threats.
>Surplus extraction is a pure metric of power.
Yes, and it is predicated upon both the disarming of the citizenry physically and the disarming of them, mentally.

>>2853306
>OP is right that value is marginal. it's just that its marginal wrt social labour, not "utility".
Well, Marx's value theory is based upon the commodity of labour-power possessing a surplus utility above its marginal cost, and it is this difference which accounts for profit. You will see in modern marginalist graphs, the threshold between Total Product (TP) and Marginal Product (MP) display the surplus product of labour as the diminishing marginal returns of labour, or simply, the surplus utility of applied labour above its marginal cost. So, the marginal model implicitly proves the source of surplus utility being labour exploited beyond its costs. Thus, if you did not have diminishing returns for labour, there would be no divergent TP, and there would be no profit. So, you can scale utility by the duration of labour. Marx gives the same result:

• "necessary labour" (MP=TP)
  
• "surplus labour" (MP≠TP)
  

So then, a 'marginal utility' interpretation of Marx is valid.

>>2853668
labour doesn't have marginal utility in Marx nor in Morishima. what is marginal are the production methods to which labour power is applied. this is most obvious in vol III with ground rent. you could choose to cast this as labour being marginal but that obscures what is going on, which is that it is the land that is marginal
marginal labour power does exist, but then we are speaking of applying less and less apt labour power to some task. for example having chefs be mechanics

>>2853668
oh and it should be said that marginality only exists when the technical makeup of the economy is fixed. marginality is convexity. as soon as you bring investment into the picture the system becomes non-convex and marginality no longer applies

>>2853672
>labour doesn't have marginal utility in Marx
Yes it does. The value of Labour-Power (e.g. marginal cost of production) is cheapened by different factors. In the scheme of the inputs [duration] and [intensity], the marginal cost of labour (e.g. the real wage) declines with application of each, which is related to what Marx describes as "absolute" and "relative" surplus value. To put another way, the more surplus value extracted, the more depreciated is the marginal utility of labour. This is why if the working day was shorter, the marginal utility of labour would be higher and so wages would be, too (since quantity between TP and MP would be smaller).

>>2853672
>>2853683
Here is Marx's basic affirmation of the marginal model (1847):
<What, then, is the general law that determines the rise and fall of wages and profit in their reciprocal relation? They stand in inverse proportion to each other. The share of (profit) increases in the same proportion in which the share of labour (wages) falls, and vice versa. Profit rises in the same degree in which wages fall; it falls in the same degree in which wages rise.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch07.htm
See how the divergence of MP and TP establishes inverse proportions?

>>2853686
that quote doesn't seem to support your conclusion. but yes, application of the same labour power probably results in marginal productivity. that is, the longer the working day, the less Porky gets per hour worked. this is the basis for socdem demands for a shorter working day, since shorter days will tend to result in higher per-hour productivity. so Porky can employ more workers and get more out of his constant capital
if Porky wants to increase the mass of profit he has a couple of options:
>lower wages
>lengthen the working day
>hire more workers
>invest in constant capital (higher OCC = lower RoP = boo!)
all of these have constraints attached to them
relative surplus value comes about from investing in constant capital. typically fixed capital (machines) that economize on inputs (labour or non-labour)
>This is why if the working day was shorter, the marginal utility of labour would be higher and so wages would be, too
not necessarily. in fact we know that the wage rate tends to hover around 50% (see Farjoun, Machover and Zachariah). hence a shorter work week will result in less value being produced. consequently the mass of wages must fall, even if the hourly wage may rise

>>2853686
oh and there is one very interesting case in vol III. that case is the slave, who produces no value according to Marx. this may appear contradictory. why would slavers bother buying slaves if they add no value? this mystery is resolved by realizing that the slaver extracts ground rent on his slaves, relative to say agricultural proles producing the same crops. the slaver pays no* wages, only the cost of the slave, which must be lower than the total wages paid to agricultural proles for slavery to exist. per dollar invested the slave is more "efficient" than the prole. therefore the slaver extracts relative surplus value from the slave, i.e. rent, even if the slave is less productive per hour worked

*) some slaves were paid a wage, but this was typically a pittance, and does not negate the slave's legal situation as a non-free worker

>>2853692
>the longer the working day, the less Porky gets per hour worked
No, its the opposite. Look at the graph again, (P) is an equal proportion between MP and TP, and incidentally, this is the peak of appreciating return for labour. Any input after (P) results in diminishing returns for labour, and inversely, an appreciating return for capital. So then, the longer labour is applied, the lesser the wage (per margin of cost; e.g. per hour) and the greater is profit.
>shorter days will tend to result in higher per-hour productivity.
Yes, and these result in higher marginal products for labour, which equates to a higher wage (lower profit).
>relative surplus value comes about from investing in constant capital
It comes about from limiting [duration] in favour of [intensity].
>consequently the mass of wages must fall, even if the hourly wage may rise
Right, but marginal cost is measured by the hourly wage. The total cost on the other hand suffers with less surplus utility applied. So then, the only way for society to increase its total wealth is to exploit itself. Marx includes this consideration in his Gothakritik (1875), that taxation will take the place of profits for public funds.

Another butthurt liberal thread. Read Marx ffs.

• LTV isn't "Marxist" itself, more news at 11
  
• it's not a "theory", it's a method
  
• it works under capitalism (to a certain degree) and it works under socialism
  
  

>Labor Theory of Value (LTV) is mathematically false
Your mum is mathematically false.

>Whether the ultimate price of a commodity is determined by socially necessary labor time or subjective marginal utility,
You can call LTV alternatively Work Method of Determining Value (WMV), Time Method of Determining Value (TMV), Effort Method of Determining Value (EMV), Energy Method of Determining Value) or if you're fancy Entropy Method of Determining Value (EMV), it doesn't matter. It would still do the job it is supposed to do: Assign a measurable value variable to an item in order to make it quantifiable & comparable and calculable in order to observe/measure and/or compute input & output for exchange within an economic context. This has nothing to do with "price". "Price" comes only into play when capitalists transform items/resources/goods/products into commodities in order to pocket profit, "revenue" or surplus value. A measurable value given by "LTV" assigned to a product is definitely NOT needed in order to assign a "price" to a commodity, in fact it is in the interest of the bourgeois to avoid such a process. Bourgeois economists would instead come up will all sorts of "economic theories" and "monetary measures" which only serve to obstruct though.
"Price" is an arbitrary number entirely defined by individual greed or other whims of individual capitalist sellers and buyers i.e. "markets", most notoriously on the "financial markets", "housing markets" or "fine arts markets". In industrial and agricultural contexts LTV is low-key still a thing e.g. for calculating wages, quantities for supplies etc.

>>2853692
In terms of OOC, the marginal return on investment diminishes with each addition of [constant] capital applied, but the only way to make up the difference is to increase the rate of labour exploitation. Thus, the rate of exploitation (total surplus labour) and rate of profit (total surplus - labour and capital costs) also exist by inverse quantities, since [absolute] exploitation increases as [marginal] profit decreases. Perhaps this what you meant.

>>2853707
is this graph based in actual data or is it just vibes? the marginal product at first increasing, then decreasing, implies non-convexity. what is the basis for this non-convexity in your model? why is the marginal product negative above 6? do workers suddenly start destroying products?
in theories based around linear constraints, such as those of von Neumann and Morishima, labour always results in a marginal product. you always start at P, and you never get more per unit of labour applied than you get for the first hour applied. this model is somewhat crude, but it can account for overhead, ground rent etc.. the only thing that it does not deal with is investment, which is non-convex
>So then, the longer labour is applied, the lesser the wage (per margin of cost; e.g. per hour) and the greater is profit.
how does this follow? if workers become less productive beyond a certain point then the RoP must decrease. even moreso when overtime pay is brought into play. Porky would prefer not to pay overtime of course, but the very existence of it implies a shortage of labour power, which implies increasingly marginal returns on expenditures on labour power. Porky might do so anyway, since it results in a higher mass of profit, even if the rate of profit is lower
>Yes, and these result in higher marginal products for labour, which equates to a higher wage (lower profit).
do you have numbers backing this up?

>>2853717
>the marginal return on investment diminishes with each addition of [constant] capital applied
I think you mean the rate of profit here, not the mass of profit. but also investment is typically non-convex. without investment you can only work the existing MoPs as they are, with increasingly marginal profit. only by investing can Porky overcome the current limits of technology, and eke out extra profit (superprofit) in his brand spanking new machinery. but this state of affairs only lasts until the competition has caught up with him. you also have the side effect of this tending to increase the value of labour power, bringing the wage rate close to 50%, or rate of exploitation to 100% if you prefer. the RoE does not deviate much from 100%. investments tend to increase OCC, which if RoE is constant reduces the RoP
a lot of this flips around in a planned economy, where we don't really care about the RoP

>>2853722
>is this graph based in actual data or is it just vibes?
It's a theoretical model, like the LTV.
>why is the marginal product negative above 6? do workers suddenly start destroying products?
So, treat the variable factor as "hours worked":

• "necessary labour" [hours 1-3]
  
• "surplus labour" [hours 4-6]
  
• N [the rate of wages]
  

After 6 hours, the marginal costs of labour are diminished below the living wage, and so this threshold is seen to be the limit of exploitation (since otherwise labour could not reproduce itself).
>you always start at P, and you never get more per unit of labour applied than you get for the first hour applied
This would be contrary to Marx's view, in that a preliminary period of "necessary labour" must first be performed to replace personal costs. To begin at P would imply self-sufficiency.
>if workers become less productive beyond a certain point then the RoP must decrease
The rate of profit yes, but the "rate" is different from the total profit. So, just like labour, as MP [its marginal rate] decreases, its TP increases. So, lets say that a company has a profit rate of 1%, this can still be billions - while another company with 50% profit rates can be thousads.
>Porky might do so anyway, since it results in a higher mass of profit, even if the rate of profit is lower
Yes exactly, although I believe that Marx writes that capitalists only care about the rate and not the mass of profit, hence they will destroy productive forces to receive a higher marginal return. Thus, the critique of political economy is a critique of marginal utility itself, no?
>do you have numbers backing this up?
Finding precise examples can be difficult and many correlations can contribute to phemomena, but in 1938 we see an 8 hour work day introduced, and we also see wages rise from 1940 onwards faster than the annual rate of inflation, so real wages increased in this time. Again, this is all theoretical, not empirical in its formulations.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1241617/average-weekly-earnings-manufacturing-united-states-early-20th-century/?srsltid=AfmBOoqFjYy6HjLJ9f3S9eQq-MP37zh6CH3pUVveRvouiHgk1negWpO3
>>2853724
>I think you mean the rate of profit here, not the mass of profit
Yes, the marginal return on profit decreases with increased OCC.

>>2853729
>Yes exactly, although I believe that Marx writes that capitalists only care about the rate and not the mass of profit, hence they will destroy productive forces to receive a higher marginal return. Thus, the critique of political economy is a critique of marginal utility itself, no?
well, one example would be moral depreciation. Porky will bring old MoPs out of production if they aren't sufficiently productive. this is not a bad thing. if you look at Soviet planning theory, for example the works of Novozhilov, you will see that they were very careful with their investments, including scrapping old MoPs if need be. this is because just like Porky, we must make good use of available labour power

Isn't the simple explanation that the more the capitalists extract and convert dead labor to money, the less capacity have workers in participating in the commodity economy?

>>2852433
I am not reading your slop. The fact that you shit it out in 5 seconds and expect me to spend several minutes reading it is disrespectful and offensive in and of itself.

the point of of the labor theory of value is not to explicate on power dynamics. THE WORKERS ALREADY SHOULD KNOW THEY ARE BEING EXPLOITED AND BY WHO. what do you people think "a spectre is haunting europe" means? LTV was absolutely essential for the project of scientific socialism as it explains why capitalism naturally develops into communism through the competitive development of the productive forces leading to mounting crises of overproduction and eventually a revolution

again i need to reiterate, the point is not to educate workers that they are being oppressed, it is to draw out the trajectory in which revolutionary conditions naturally arise and how to plan ahead effectively. anything else lapses into utopianist moralism!

>>2854035
took about 2 minutes for my browser to read it to me while I fucked off in another tab (not OP btw)

>>2854131
surplus product and labor vouchers

>>2853668
>Marx's value theory is based upon the commodity of labour-power possessing a surplus utility above its marginal cost
No. Marginalist analysis is a side thing in Marx and the classical economists (mostly in the context of land rent).
>if you did not have diminishing returns for labour, there would be no divergent TP, and there would be no profit
This does not follow at all.

I give you an F for this post.

>>2853686
That's Marx saying the fight of wages VS profits is a zero-sum game (seeing it like Ricardo).

>>2854397
>This does not follow at all.
It is self-evident. Without surplus labour there is no exploitation.
In the marginalist model, exploitation is labour's diminishing returns.

>>2854548
>Without surplus labour there is no exploitation.
The point made in >>2853668 was more specific than that and the point was explicitly quoted in the post you reply to. This bit:
>if you did not have diminishing returns for labour (…) there would be no profit

>>2855117
>there would be no profit
the value of labor power isn't some fixed thing. Porky can and does pay workers below their value, for example when there is an excess of immigrants or people coming in from the countryside. this will tend to depress the value of labor power

>>2852433
the only refutation that ever shows up is shitty art which is made by the failchildren of the wealthy and is valuable as an instrument for money laundering and tax evasion.

OP hasnt read capital. thats not what the labour theory of value is, thats just what online ancaps think the labour theory of value is.
no muh mudpie is not a valid argument, no marx did not deny supply and demand, no marx did not deny that there are multiple factors that determine the prices of commodities

read the actual fucking book

>>2855223
Can you actually make an argument how it follows that, "if you did not have diminishing returns for labour (…) there would be no profit". Your original claim, now quoted at you for the third time.

>>2856161
I'm not the anon making nonsense claims about profit requiring diminishing returns from labour

>>2854445
shit, an ai thread and anons arent even noticing. its fucking over lol, its been dead the last few months tbh

>>2856465
Literally said in first reply:
>sounds very LLMish tbh
Second reply:
>Thank you for your ChatGPT revisionism