/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>If the LTV is correct
Its not.

>>2889207
why ?

>>2889197
Imo one place to start would be to analyze the claim that the profite rate becomes uniform over thousands of heterogenous goods.

>>2889212
if value = price, marginalism is is a better explanation of many phenomena
if value =/= price, who cares about value?

a political program shouldn't really stand or fall on such economic minutiae in any case.

>>2889246
>who cares about value?
Appeal to function, hence your argument can be rejected. The goal of inquiry isn't to justify teleologic goals, it is to attain truth.

>>2889246
Go back to your containment thread, smith anon

>>2889249
what if value is an unknowable abstract property? how can one attain truth if value is, in essence, secret?
you implicitly reject the first formulation that value = price or price plus or minus some factor.

>>2889251
so far as i understand it, smith was an LTV believer and marginalism wouldn't arise until much later.

>>2889269
>what if value is an unknowable abstract property?
How can we have a word to designate a fundamentally unknowable thing ? If we posit that humans are beings whose knowledge comes from the external world, recieved phenomenally, we can infer that for any concept to be created, it would have to pass through a phenomenally-recievable format. This is because any concept is abstracted from our phenomenal perception. (https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/psychology/concept-formation)

As such, if the concept of "value" exists, it must have a phenomenal form that is cognizable.

>you implicitly reject the first formulation that value = price
I don't reject that the appearance of value takes the form of a price. What I reject is that its appearance is its content itself.
Price is just something which occurs when labor has already been enacted, and when it's already been subject to commodification. The underlining structure of the price already implies commodification, which itself implies labor-content.
Idk tho if that's what Marx argued or if I'm just going on a tangent but that's why I believed in the LTV in the first place.

>>2889197
Reminder:
marx never ever used the words "labor theory of value" anywhere in all 3 volumes of capital to describe his theory of value nor does he put it up against "subjective theory of value." this is a construction of debatebros in the 21st century. marx's theory of value contains both subjective and objective elements. the subjective element is called use value. an object has use value if enough humans want it to justify creating many of them. this is also related to demand. the objective element is called exchange value. an object has exchange value if it requires labor time to bring to market. this includes raw materials and natural resources. even an apple which falls from a tree has to be picked up and carried to a market place. this is also related to supply. if something has both use value (a rate of demand determined by widespread human desires or needs) and exchange value (a rate of supply determined by average labor time), and is created for the purpose of being sold, it is a commodity. If it is lacking one or another, it is not a commodity. This is crucial to know because marx's theory of value is not about random one-of-a-kind things like The Original Mona Lisa, or things which nobody wants like mud pies. It is about commodities. Marx's theory of value isn't meant to describe any random object, nor even every single commodity, but rather the average commodity. Misapplying his theory to domains it was not meant to explain is not a fault with the theory, but the fault of the person over-applying it. Another important thing is price versus value. Price deviates from value according to non-production factors: Currency hegemony, Currency devaluation, Scarcity, monopoly, monopsony, government expropriation, theft, war etc. Value on the other hand is only looking at the factors of production. So the transformation "problem" is about trying to apply a theory of value as if it were a theory of price. Marx's value is not trying to say anything about the final market price. So when Marx says that the value of a commodity is its socially necessary labor time, he is not talking about the price. He is only pointing out the tug of war between profit and wages which occurs in the production process, and how that results in class conflict and class struggle between the bourgeoisie and proletariat, since the bourgeoisie own the means of production, and it is in the bourgeoisie's interests to lower wages and increase profit, not just for their own personal consumption of mansions and yachts and so forth, but also so that they have more money with which to expand production, and buy more means of production, and buy more labor power, and buy more raw materials. Capiche?

>As such, any commodity can be broken down and will always be reduccible to its labor-content
this is metaphysics
>what's the solution to the transformation problem ?
picrel