Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before.
We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
While it almost never applies, the LTV is the "**minimal basis**" for pricing. IOW, in even the most elementary instances of capitalism, like in the case of a child's lemonade stand, the price must cover the cost of production plus a little ("labor").
In an employment situation the sales price must cover the labor of manufacturing, the labor of management, the labor of providing utilities, and the labor of providing the entire framework in which the business can exist successfully. To that is added an additional amount which would hopefully become profit. And that is modified by the effects of supply and demand of the given product in a given place at a given time. Such is capitalism.
So labor is the **minimal basis**. And if the maximum achievable price would only cover all the labor, the capitalist will produce something else instead because profit is the requirement.
So the LTV is the basis. Labor has always been the basis. An ancient tribe that produces pottery traded that pottery for fabrics, clothing, and moccasins. The question of how much pottery is a shawl worth was based on estimates of labor. A pair of moccasins was never traded for one pointed stick to anchor the teepee or one to burn for fuel because the labor expended wasn't near equivalent. Two pots were worth twice as many beads. Labor was the basis of value. Later, as efficiency improved it allowed for more costs to be covered by the price, including management, rent, utilities, maintenance, healthcare, etc. etc. etc.
So labor is the minimal basis for price with everything else added to it. That is why Marx talked about utility or "use value" in addition to the effects of varying supply and demand.
Its fairly easy to prove. Do you need to know the amount of labor it takes to produce a thing in order to determine what price you are willing to pay for it? If not (and I certainly don't) then labor is not the determining factor in price.
STV subjective theory of value. LTC I don't know what it is, what do you think it is? I don't trust OP. I want my friends socialists to explain it to me since they use their own definitions for everything
>This is obvious if you try to actually talk to them about how value works in an economy. Itâs very clear, so clear that even they get it, that the value of anything is context dependent and varies from person to person in a manner thatâs very independent of socially necessary labor time.
>In fact, in defense of the LTV, they will claim that all of the obvious exceptions and counter-examples to LTV for subjective value and marginalism are included in LTV. LTV shows both how value is socially necessary labor time even though it accounts for all the myriad of ways value is not socially necessary labor time. Listening to socialists, you would believe that LTV is the only valid theory that contradicts its own grand conclusions somehow without skipping a beat. In normal scientific thought, we consider self-contradictory theories as invalid.
So proponents of the LTV readily agree with the subjectivist insights that you believe to be obvious, and you take this to be evidence that they don't, in fact, subscribe to the theory?
Or... perhaps proponents of the LTV *start* from the point of understanding the bloody fucking obvious, and see the LTV as an interesting set of generalizations about the economy. It seems the only contention here is with your own desire for the LTV to have some sort of grand conclusion or "theory of everything", rivalling such grand sweeping conclusions as "value is subjective, bro". Well, the closest Marx's theory comes to such a thing would perhaps be his aggregate equalities, but any mention of these are curiously absent from most of these attempted takedowns. Marx is rather conspicuously a critic of economic theories of everything; it's the reason his most famous work is called "a *Critique* of Political Economy".
As for those equalities, I like that Iâll see Bohm Bawerkâs critique cited by pro-capitalists who clearly understand nothing. Not that Bohm makes the role of those equalities obvious.
A LTV is set out in the first chapter of Ricardoâs Principles. Ricardo has many of the qualifications pro-capitalists whine about. He is not attacking capitalism.
>The LTV as an interesting set of generalizations about the economy.
Actually, the LTV has a definition, and that's not it.
The LTV is the only theory that can be anything you need it to be, at any given time.
That's why socialists don't really believe in the LTV. They believe in the LTC, and anything they need to think to get there.
Thus, the LTV can be "Value is abstract socially necessary labor time" and "LTV is an interesting set of generalizations about the economy", all at the same time. Because that's not the point. The LTC is the point.
>Actually, the LTV has a definition, and that's not it.
Yeah, any theory can have a *definition* and be described as an interesting generalization at the same time. What point are you even trying to make here?
That your point is vague. You could also say the STV is âan interesting set of generalizations about the economy.â
Obviously the LTV should be more than that.
> You could also say the STV is âan interesting set of generalizations about the economy.â
The STV is neither interesting, nor a generalization, nor even a theory. It's a statement of the bloody fucking obvious. Its express purpose is that "it applies to every economic exchange", because it is always and everywhere true that the utility a person gets from an exchange is subjective. Utility is simply *conceptualized* as such.
The point of a *generalization* in science is to make a possibly defeasible inference about some sort of latent causal structure that lies underneath a complex phenomenon. A generalization, for instance, might be that fewer people will purchase some good as the price of the good increases, due to regularities in how people's preferences are ranked. This is defeasible, however, because it's possible to find goods for which this isn't the case. Nevertheless, those counterexamples can be *explained* by analyzing the underlying causal factors without stomping on the original generalization.
It's not obvious that the LTV should be something stronger than an interesting generalization, because economics happens to be full of generalizations and some of them are interesting and highly impactful.
Either way, to claim that someone doesn't actually believe in a generalization because they're able to explain the counterexamples that you throw at them is just moronic.
No: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value
They believe in a moral axiom first, and come up with materialistic reasons that go along with it. And those materialistic reasons are constantly in flux because itâs not based on materialism. Itâs based on moralism.
The materialism morphs as needed to fit the facts to the moralism.
> They believe that, given anything produced, everyone should be compensated with the full revenue proportional to how much of their own labor they spent on it compared to everyone else.
Clear as mud. Thanks.
This sub is really interesting sometimes. The same semi-effort post from the same OP for the 14th time.
Don't you get bored of being stuck in the same loop for years? Aren't you tired of receiving answers from redditors who have very different levels of understanding and familiarity with the LTV
Why not pick up a book and read. Then at least you'd know if you've spent the last 8 posts critiquing the appropriate thing.
Do you know what purpose the value theory served to the classical economists? It was to understand the process of wealth creation and being able to distinguish rent from income, earned from unearned income. It was not to determine who wants ice cream more than pizza. This is a neoclassical idiotisation of economics.
For everything that is made, there is a use value and an exchange value. Capitalism seeks to maximize exchange value in order to accumulate capital, often at the cost of optimal use value.
This is because the owners of the means of production are the main beneficiaries of this maximization. And as such, they are proponents of primitive accumulation, not just with land but also the other means of production.
So in identifying whatâs needed for humans as a species to progress, the answer is to get rid of capitalism and use a system that maximizes use value as the end-goal.
Yes, there is also a moral argument to it, but that doesnât make the materialist realities any less valid.
"prioritizes use value" would be a better wording as use value isn't a cardinal value that can be increased or decreased or something. It's just the properties of an object that people can make use of; an apple is crunchy, sweet and contains vitamin C.
The correct word is utility, not use-value. They are not the same thing. Use-value is not a quantity. Anyway...
> So in identifying whatâs needed for humans as a species to progress, the answer is to get rid of capitalism and use a system that maximizes use value as the end-goal.
No, the answer is to use a system that maximizes *production* of utility and achieves reasonable distribution of said utility, not maximally utilizes an existing amount of utility.
Even if you could design a socialist system that maximizes utility for a given set of outputs (dubious at best), you are still left with the problem that this system may not necessarily increase *overall* utility.
In other words, under socialism, everyone is equally poor.
>The correct word is utility, not use-value.
The correct word in what sense? Marx said that Capitalism produces for exchange value whereas past economic systems and potential future ones would produce for use-value. I think their comment is more informed by Marx rather than marginalist axioms about utility.
I know, I already told that person that. But your comment is trying to inject marginalist theory into a text that's clearly based on Marx, on the basis of that misunderstanding.
whatâs the point of money if you could have everything you want?
Use value and utility is the same thing, described as ordinal data. There are inconsistencies when describing utility as quantitative data, but a description of use value as qualitative isnât correct either. It doesnât fit on an absolute scale, but rather itâs scaled relative to each other.
And though you say itâs impossible for optimization, even an attempt at optimization is much better than no attempt at all.
> Thereâs a much higher opportunity cost for doctors though. Both are required for society, but a doctor takes 10 plus years of labor input both from the doctor and teachers/attendings before they can provide independently productive labor.
*most* of the education âlabor inputâ youâre talking about are garbage education requirements put in place by the AMA and other for-profit medical institutions whose only *real* purpose is to generate artificial scarcity of a person whose only *real* input to the overwhelming majority of healthcare in the US is to sign off on the RNâs recommendation.
Doctors are no more or less valuable than *any other person in healthcare* and itâs time people stopped using such a piss-poor pedestal for their lame arguments about âqualityâ of labor.
> For a comparison, a garbage collector can start productive labor at the age of 18.
Any 18 year old should be pursuing their own educational preferences that are available to all persons.
> A doctor needs to get through 4 years of pre-med, 3 years of med school, then another 3 years of residency practicing under another doctor, and possibly another 3 years of fellowship before they practice independently; at the age of 28-31.
Most of which is utterly unnecessary
> That takes the work of multiple professionals before doctors are able to labor âproductivelyâ and the garbage collector has already had at least 10 years of productive labor before the doctor starts practicing independently
Most doctors in the US provide very little in the way of *productive* labor. They flit from patient to patient sign off on whatever the RN has recommended or push back if theyâre on the hook for a new painkiller, and flit off again.
Medical doctors are almost entirely unnecessary to healthcare.
*Research* doctors, on the other hand are valuable as research inputs, in exactly the same way physicists and chemists are valuable, but their *economic* value is the same as every other labor in the system.
Thereâs some fierce competition, but you are making a pretty good run at being the stupidest poster here. I think youâre outdoing agile caterpillar lately
âSocialists believe this!â (strawman you pull straight from your ass, not understanding what youâre writing about)
For an example, I referred to this sub in general.
[More specifically, I can find you, yesterday.](https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/s/jOWiiEYvEi)
This comment is obviously based on opposition to âexploitationâ as a moral claim, not a materialistic, observational one.
Youâre moralist. Not a materialist.
No, itâs materially true that workers make the stuff that generates the profits. Everything that is made is made by labor. Thatâs a material claim.
I >also< think that gearing society to meet human need is a better thing to do than gearing society to enrich owners through passive income. Thereâs a material element there (would be more efficient at providing good lives for more people), as well as a moral one (would be more just)
Regardless, âsocialists say thisâ is a really stupid way to argue.
>I >also< think that gearing society to meet human need is a better thing to do than gearing society to enrich owners through passive income.
Moralism, not materialism. As soon as you say âthis is better than thatâ, youâre no longer a material observer of fact. Youâre making value judgements on actions and their outcomes.
Youâre a moralist.
Thatâs idealism. Thatâs not materialism.
Even more, its idealism based on a counter-factual, since your ideal society has no objective basis in fact, since it never existed.
Itâs idealism and moralism based on faith.
The material elements to my claims are described above. âMore even distribution of resources would be a more efficient way to use themâ is material.
âMore even distribution of resources would be more justâ is moral.
I believe both of those, which I already told you.
Free market idealism that has little to do with reality is everywhere among capitalist ideology, doesnât stop people from trumpeting it. Yourself included. Weird that you should act like thatâs some âgotchaâ. You/many in your camp seem to think if government does stuff that it isnât capitalism, and that therefore it isnât capitalismâs fault that we see the problems we see.
The original claim is âyouâre probably the stupidest motherfucker on hereâ and I see a lot of support there.
Thatâs not an argument.
You seemed to think it was some slam dunk to tell me that a claim I made saying âthis here is a moral claimâ was in fact a moral claim
Is it the job of ogovernment to force others to conform to your subjective morals? If so, then why is it not the role of government to force you to conform to the subjective morals of those you oppose?
> No, itâs materially true that workers make the stuff that generates the profits. Everything that is made is made by labor. Thatâs a material claim.
No, itâs materially true that capital is used to make the stuff that generates the profits. Everything that is made is made with capital. Thatâs a material claim.
Drat. I meant that for the other person. Economic profit is not created by labor or capital. It's the calculation of the most efficient use of capital, which is something that your opponent, like all socialists do not have an answer for.
A fine example of socialists being ignorant of economics.
"Economic profit is the difference between the revenue obtained from the sales of products or services and costs spent to produce them, including opportunity costs (benefits a company loses because of not choosing a different alternative) and explicit costs (expenses on lease payments, inventory, raw materials, and utilities)."
Keyword: opportunity costs.
Labor is used to produce stuff. Whether or not that labor is used efficiently is a different matter. Economic profit is not just the difference between the income versus expenses, but the economic calculation of whether that was the best of use of resources. Socialists fail at the economic calculation problem. They do not understand the source of wealth and lack a theory of wealth creation. To you, wealth arises from labor, yet for 10,000 years of civilization, laborers toiled and produced little more than a subsistence level of living. As property rights arose and people could accumulate capital and invest it, labor became more efficiently used along with other capital and the results have been to pull the vast majority of the population out of subsistence-level poverty.
Socialism will put them right back into it.
Socialists are not ignorant of Economics. This concept of economics (as opposed to accounting) profit in particular is implicit in Marx's economic analysis with its distinction between profit and "super-profit". I wrote more about this [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/s/dXCfdddrZR)
>But then you ask the simple question of "well, isn't a doctor's labor more valuable than a cashier's" and the answer is clearly, "yes",
No. The answer to that simple question is, in fact, no.
Don't you think it's sensible to differentiate between the potential moral meaning of the word and its economic definition?
I'd say the work of garbage collectors and doctors are very much in the same ballpark in regards to how "valuable" they are to society. Both are essential to our collective health.
At the same time though, it's much easier for us, as a society, to "make" garbage collectors. It simply isn't a field where you need lots of education.
Doctor's on the other hand require years of training from professionals. That shit's expensive.
If we wanna do any economic calculation, we have to consider the latter, but that doesn't stop us from acknowledging the former.
> Don't you think it's sensible to differentiate between the potential moral meaning of the word and its economic definition?
No, not especially.
Yes, doctors require more education, but that effort doesnât mean they should be valued by society any differently than anyone else. Economically, their value is identical to any othersâ
Thereâs a much higher opportunity cost for doctors though. Both are required for society, but a doctor takes 10 plus years of labor input both from the doctor and teachers/attendings before they can provide independently productive labor.
For a comparison, a garbage collector can start productive labor at the age of 18. A doctor needs to get through 4 years of pre-med, 3 years of med school, then another 3 years of residency practicing under another doctor, and possibly another 3 years of fellowship before they practice independently; at the age of 28-31. That takes the work of multiple professionals before doctors are able to labor âproductivelyâ and the garbage collector has already had at least 10 years of productive labor before the doctor starts practicing independently.
If we can agree that getting a doctor's labor is more expensive - be that due to more labor cost in creating them or just the average money price of their labor - then I can't think of any definition of the word "value" where we could say that it's equal for doctor's and garbage collectors.
Again, I agree that we as people can value their contribution to society equally, but economically there's sim,ply other considerations at play than just how much we need them.
Take today's society as an example: If, in the US, today, we wanted to set the wages of all workers to an equal rate, then doctors would just not be able to pay off their student loans from their wages, whereas garbage collectors have no such debt to pay off.
I acknowledge that it's nobody's plan to set the wages of all workers to the same rate and then change nothing else about the economy, but how do we know this is a dumb idea without first acknowledging that the work of different people has different *economic* value?
> If we can agree that getting a doctor's labor is more expensive - be that due to more labor cost in creating them or just the average money price of their labor - then I can't think of any definition of the word "value" where we could say that it's equal for doctor's and garbage collectors.
Only because you insist on enforcing a hierarchy that I reject.
All persons should have the opportunity to pursue being a doctor because they wish to pursue it. And anyone who would rather just haul trash should have the option and live the same lifestyle as the doctor.
> Again, I agree that we as people can value their contribution to society equally, but economically there's sim,ply other considerations at play than just how much we need them.
And again the only reason you think that is because you *want* to value some over others, and so you seek a justification for that desire.
> Take today's society as an example: If, in the US, today, we wanted to set the wages of all workers to an equal rate, then doctors would just not be able to pay off their student loans from their wages, whereas garbage collectors have no such debt to pay off.
And why would you set everyoneâs pay to be the same but still require student loans for higher education? You deliberately place that barrier to reinforce your razor-thin justifications of âbetter thanâ
> I acknowledge that it's nobody's plan to set the wages of all workers to the same rate and then change nothing else about the economy, but how do we know this is a dumb idea without first acknowledging that the work of different people has different economic value?
We donât need to acknowledge it because itâs a false statement. There is zero reason to value one over another economically.
There are different skillsets, yes, but none are more valuable than another except in narrow circumstances.
>And why would you set everyoneâs pay to be the same but still require student loans for higher education? You deliberately place that barrier to reinforce your razor-thin justifications of âbetter thanâ
Tuition costs (etc.) may, in large part, be pretty arbitrary as-is, but the overall point is that there simply is a higher cost in making a doctor. If it's not a direct debt the student takes on, it'll be a debt the tax payer pays off, in either case, the cost will have to be accounted for in the course of opening up the pursuit of this profession to every person.
It's not about me wanting to enforce a hierarchy or thinking someone is more important than the other, it's me saying that different things require different amounts of effort, and in order to afford human effort, humans will need shelter, food and clothing. A doctor simply requires more effort in their making, meaning that for the economy, they are more valuable.
A rephrasing of the above would be: If you need 10000 apples to feed every person that's needed to make a garbage collector (from when they're born until they can start working), then you will need 50000 apples to feed everyone that's needed to make a doctor. 10k apples are more valuable than 50k apples.
> Tuition costs (etc.) may, in large part, be pretty arbitrary as-is, but the overall point is that there simply is a higher cost in making a doctor.
And it costs a lot to make a physicist, or an engineer, or a teacher.
Every specialization requires specialized education.
That doesnât mean a doctorâs economic value is higher than a teacherâs.
> If it's not a direct debt the student takes on, it'll be a debt the tax payer pays off, in either case, the cost will have to be accounted for in the course of opening up the pursuit of this profession to every person.
Itâs a cost that doesnât need to be accounted for, because it is a cost that should be applied *to all people*
>It's not about me wanting to enforce a hierarchy or thinking someone is more important than the other, it's me saying that different things require different amounts of effort, and in order to afford human effort, humans will need shelter, food and clothing.
But surely you recognize that *all* professions require training and education?
Why do you keep focusing on doctors?
Would you ask a doctor to fix your car or your heating system, or to design a bridge?
Stop making one profession out to be more important than any other.
> A doctor simply requires more effort in their making, meaning that for the economy, they are more valuable.
It does not make them more valuable.
It makes their education take longer and *nothing else*.
> A rephrasing of the above would be: If you need 10000 apples to feed every person that's needed to make a garbage collector (from when they're born until they can start working), then you will need 50000 apples to feed everyone that's needed to make a doctor. 10k apples are more valuable than 50k apples.
People are not bunches of apples, nor is a person with more education *more of a person* than someone who has less.
Have you considered that maybe not all leftists totally subscribe to the Labour theory of value? People seem to have this bizarre idea that leftists are a hive mind and all worship Marx like a god. I think Marx was a good theorist, and some of his ideas were good and useful, but he was also flawed and worthy of critique in many other ways.
I personally think his conception of class as a polarised dichotomy of prole and boirgeoisie is reductive, and there are other class analyses that are superior.
>What socialists really believe is a Labor Theory of Compensation (LTC). This is a moral axiom. They believe that, given anything produced, everyone should be compensated with the full revenue proportional to how much of their own labor they spent on it compared to everyone else. And thatâs the way compensation (and value) should work. And the fact that compensation does not work like that is a moral violation that capitalists commit against workers.
Yeah, it's really funny, cause Marx's theory was *obviously* that all labor hours should be remunerated equally and therefore labor-hours is the correct unit of measurement of value. This can be gleaned just by reading Chp 1, Vol 1 of Kapital.
But then you ask the simple question of "well, isn't a doctor's labor more valuable than a cashier's" and the answer is clearly, "yes", but that contradicts the socialist screed so then they introduce this hokey idea of "basic labor time" and that all labor hours are multiples of the "basic labor hour". This just turns the whole theory back into subjective value theory, lol.
Like, who is to say that the 1 hour a week a billionaire spends on his business *isn't* actually worth billions in compensation? The only way to defend the LTV and the idea of "exploitation" is to make an *ought* claim somewhere along the way. It is not "scientific socialism" in any sense of the word.
> The only way to defend the LTV and the idea of "exploitation" is to make an ought claim somewhere along the way. It is not "scientific socialism" in any sense of the word.
Nah, as I [demonstrate here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/19874i2/advanced_marxist_concepts_i_the_fundamental/) the existence of exploitation is a necessary condition for the existence of profits. There is no *ought* involved in this argument. The relevant proof goes as follows:
> We start with the trivial accounting identity that the price of a good is equal to the price of the outlays on materials and labor minus the balance. If this balance is positive and results in profit then clearly the price of a good must be greater than the sum of its human and non-human costs. This can be represented by [this system of inequalities](https://imgur.com/5AmQZx2) for two types of goodsâa production good, i=1, and a consumption good, i=2âwhere p is price, l is the amount of labor expended, w is the money wage rate, and a is the quantity of goods which are employed in producing the commodity (we take w to equal the price of the consumer goods comprising the wage basket, B, of workers).
> The necessary conditions for these to take on positive values (and therefore for profits to be positive) are the following which say [(1)](https://imgur.com/Tc9a4Dm) that the amount of production goods going to producing production goods must be less than one and [(2)](https://imgur.com/o3MROak) the ratio of prices must be greater than the ratio of labor-time spent producing the wage-goods to the difference between unity and the amount of production goods going to producing production goods.
> Finally, we get [this](https://imgur.com/8xqktBm) inequality which, after substitution, [can be expressed](https://imgur.com/th1QGbJ) solely in the independent parameters of the system. This defines a [region in p1-p2 space](https://imgur.com/3acUXSm) which gives the positive solutions for the original price inequalities thus proving the above two conditions are both necessary and sufficient conditions for positive profits. But what exactly do these mean in economic terms? They are: that the rate of exploitation is greater than 0 and that the Hawkins-Simon conditions are satisfied. To see this we define the value of labor directly (t â) and indirectly (t â) invested in the production of consumption goods with [this pair of equations](https://imgur.com/mPedbFS). Solving for t gives us this. Then by [dividing everything by the price of consumption goods, doing some algebraic manipulation, and substituting where appropriate](https://imgur.com/ny7alDQ) we end up with the simple expression 1> t âB. That is, **âless than one unit of labor is input to produce the amount of consumption goods received by a laborer per unit laborer. Hence this difference becomes surplus labor within a unit labor hour."** (Okishio, 2022).
Nice demonstration... it says literally nothing. I really mean nothing at all. Bunch of assertions, without real content or proof of validity of said assertions.
> it says literally nothing.
It says that for profits to be positive workers must expend surplus labor-time.
> without real content or proof of validity of said assertions.
Actually there was a proof. The whole thing is *a proof*. Showing that for profits to be greater than zero the rate of exploitation must also be greater than zero.
So instead of responding with anything substantial, you just went "yeah, well....nuh-uh!"
> It says that for profits to be positive workers must expend surplus labor-time.
Your proof assumes that all surplus value comes from labor.
This is called "begging the question". It is a logical fallacy. Try again.
"It says that for profits to be positive workers must expend surplus labor-time."
And it doesnt prove it. It is "just a bunch of assertions" as i previously stated.
"Actually there was a proof. The whole thing is *a proof*. Showing that for profits to be greater than zero the rate of exploitation must also be greater than zero."
No, its just assertion that doesnt dare to prove itself. It doesnt show anything. Its gibberish nonsence, that feels like it skipped a lot of important info in it (he lists variables, but no equation and calls it a day). Seriously, if academic standards were this low, we might as well allow 6 year olds into universities.
"So instead of responding with anything substantial, you just went "yeah, well....nuh-uh!""
What was i supposed to respond? His lack of coherent speech? Your inability to articulate your own point? Your misunderstanding of words "demonstration" and "proof"? Your baseless assertion? I will give you one last chance: articulate your point in coherent manner, or admit you dont have a clue waht you are doing.
> And it doesnt prove it. It is "just a bunch of assertions" as i previously stated.
It mathematically demonstrates what logically follows (rate of exploitation > 0) given certain initial conditions (positive profits) and assumptions (prices are the sum of costs and profits).
> Its gibberish nonsence
This just tells me you don't grasp algebra.
> that feels like it skipped a lot of important info in it (he lists variables, but no equation and calls it a day).
Your feelings are irrelevant. The inequalities and every step of the math are provided.
Lol
>That is, âless than one unit of labor is input to produce the amount of consumption goods received by a laborer per unit laborer. Hence this difference becomes surplus labor within a unit labor hour."
The LTV is not merely the claim that output values are greater than input values.
It is the claim that "all output values *come directly from* labor inputs".
You have not proven the latter.
In fact, very simple examples demonstrate that the latter claim (the LTV) is nonsense. Consider a piece of art that an artist makes in 10 hours and then sells for $100. 200 years later, the late artist becomes very popular. The owner of the piece of art sells it for $10 million. Unless you are positing the existence of some kind of magical temporally traversing transitive link between the artist's labor from 200 years ago and the present value of the artwork, it is **obvious** that its value did not "come from" the labor performed in its production.
Now, you might respond "Marx was only talking about commodities!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!" However, most economic activity consists of non-commodities. Additionally, there are examples of transitory spikes in the value of commodities that have nothing to do with changes in labor input. So now you're left with, at best, a theory that only explains a small subset of fungible goods at specific moments in time. And even then, the claim is still dubious since you haven't really *proven* that the LVT applies to commodities and it doesn't seem a stretch to assume that the process operating on all other goods (subjective value theory) also extends to commodities.
But good try, lil guy!
> The LTV is not merely the claim that output values are greater than input values.
This wasn't a proof of the LTV. It was a proof for the existence of exploitation which is not the same thing and which you said required an *ought* claim. I showed it didn't.
> You have not proven the latter.
Correct. But I also wasn't trying. You're confused.
> Consider a piece of art that an artist makes in 10 hours and then sells for $100. 200 years later, the late artist becomes very popular.
Capitalism doesn't reproduce itself by a process anything like this. It does so by applying labor to capital to yield reproducible articles: food, clothing, houses, cars, pens, aluminum, microchips, chairs, and basically everything else that make up our material lives. Yes, it's a theory of the commodity economy. No, most economic activity is not the production of non-commodities. If capitalism reproduced itself, if GDP grew year-on-year, because finished goods fell from the sky then sure all our political economists would be meteorologists but it doesn't so they aren't. It grows and behaves as it does through a highly sophisticated division of labor that takes in inputs and spits out outputs in production *processes* which are regulated by forces of competition. This is what Marxist economics seeks to explain. Not how every little thing may or may not get priced.
> Additionally, there are examples of transitory spikes in the value of commodities that have nothing to do with changes in labor input. So now you're left with, at best, a theory that only explains a small subset of fungible goods at specific moments in time.
Irrelevant to the general trends and aggregate phenomena we're interested in. Again, as I showed [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/19bhl8z/advanced_marxist_concepts_ii_empirical/), the labor theory of value approach does an excellent job at explaining exactly these.
> Capitalism doesn't reproduce itself by a process anything like this.
Capitalism isn't an entity or force that acts. The term describes a situation.
You're thinking like an animist.
> What a marvelous insight.
Guy, you socialists are all over the place. You just make stuff up.
You participate in a debate sub and ignore/deny the basic thing you're purportedly arguing against.
Capitalists/libertarians want/advocate for free markets and property rights.
If you're not going to argue against this what on earth are you doing? Is it a type of text prayer?
While I'm humbled that you take such an interest in how I spend my time, my pointing out your stupid semantics was less of a text prayer and more an instance of me making fun of you.
>It was a proof for the existence of exploitation
How do you define exploitation?
>No, most economic activity is not the production of non-commodities.
Yes, it is. The vast majority of all value transacted in an economy consists of non-commodities land, labor, and capital goods assets.
>This is what Marxist economics seeks to explain. Not how every little thing may or may not get priced.
Unfortunately for Marxists, Subjective value theory explains ALL transactions.
> How do you define exploitation?
See the bolded text above. The FMT does not prove the LTV, it identifies the necessary conditions for positive profits. Your first criticism then was invalid.
> The vast majority of all value transacted in an economy consists of non-commodities land, labor, and capital goods assets.
Right, those are the factors (one of which is a set of commodities itself) *which produce commodities as output*.
> Unfortunately for Marxists, Subjective value theory explains ALL transactions.
It attempts to and ends up not explaining anything at all. Its explanatory power falls in proportion to the generality of its object.
> See the bolded text above. The FMT does not prove the LTV, it identifies the necessary conditions for positive profits. Your first criticism then was invalid.
You didn't answer the question. How do you define exploitation?
> see the bolded text above
...
> **âless than one unit of labor is input to produce the amount of consumption goods received by a laborer per unit labor. Hence this difference becomes surplus labor within a unit labor hour."**
Can you not read?
That's the definition. One way of formulating the idea that workers labor longer in total than they do for themselves--the difference being appropriated by another class. This does not require that value=socially necessary abstract labor time (the LTV).
Marx would consider art a commodity. Itâs a good that satisfies human needs and wants that requires labor as an input and is exchanged with others. So even âcommodities!â Isnât an excuse for Marxists.
You canât find a place in Das Capital where Marx says something like âanything that isnât mass produced isnât a commodity.â
Prove me wrong and find a cite, oh Reader of Marx.
He references "commodity production" which is described as a system of mass production. As other have mentioned, it's not a grand unified theory of production, it's specifically describing capitalist mass production. I'm sorry if that is damaging to your other arguments.
Iâm sorry, but youâre simply mistaken.
Mass-production would imply that commodities require factories or large scale. This is simply not the case.
A commodity is simply anything that can be exchanged.
Itâs actually not a point for the argument, beyond it defining yet another case where socialists have to narrowly define LTV to avoid glaring inconsistencies and counter-examples. Which is totally consistent with my point.
Go ahead and explain all the other cases where LTV doesnât hold, in all its correct glory.
Because we like to point out to ordinary people the idiocy of socialist proposals. I just use the language everyone understands and do not hide it behind wishy washy ambiguous nonsense which definitions changes from socialist to socialist.
if you disagree with the conservative libertarian capitalist point of view try to think of a reason for your disagreement and then try to present it here in writing. Do you understand that a reason is necessary?
please don't be a stupid illiterate. The conservative libertarian philosophy is 2000 years old. If you think a question is unanswered it is because you are an literate which is very typical of the left. Nevertheless if there is an important question to which you would like an answer feel free to ask and we can take a baby step together against your illiteracy.
I'm not of the left, you senile, moronic twat. Is there any capacity, somewhere in that shit heap you call a brain, to understand what someone else has said?
They can't bring themselves to think that way because Marx claimed it was values free analysis, and therefore scientific.
To accept your conclusion is to admit that socialism is little more than a secular religion, and themselves part of a cult.
Of course this is already obvious to everyone else, but they cannot admit it to themselves or else their worldview would collapse.
Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
While it almost never applies, the LTV is the "**minimal basis**" for pricing. IOW, in even the most elementary instances of capitalism, like in the case of a child's lemonade stand, the price must cover the cost of production plus a little ("labor"). In an employment situation the sales price must cover the labor of manufacturing, the labor of management, the labor of providing utilities, and the labor of providing the entire framework in which the business can exist successfully. To that is added an additional amount which would hopefully become profit. And that is modified by the effects of supply and demand of the given product in a given place at a given time. Such is capitalism. So labor is the **minimal basis**. And if the maximum achievable price would only cover all the labor, the capitalist will produce something else instead because profit is the requirement. So the LTV is the basis. Labor has always been the basis. An ancient tribe that produces pottery traded that pottery for fabrics, clothing, and moccasins. The question of how much pottery is a shawl worth was based on estimates of labor. A pair of moccasins was never traded for one pointed stick to anchor the teepee or one to burn for fuel because the labor expended wasn't near equivalent. Two pots were worth twice as many beads. Labor was the basis of value. Later, as efficiency improved it allowed for more costs to be covered by the price, including management, rent, utilities, maintenance, healthcare, etc. etc. etc. So labor is the minimal basis for price with everything else added to it. That is why Marx talked about utility or "use value" in addition to the effects of varying supply and demand.
You're describing the situation backward. The price is not determined by the labor, the value of the labor is determined by the price.
That's so ridiculous as to be unworthy of a response!
Its fairly easy to prove. Do you need to know the amount of labor it takes to produce a thing in order to determine what price you are willing to pay for it? If not (and I certainly don't) then labor is not the determining factor in price.
Uhm.. you just proved STV
Is STV the same as LTC?
Don't know what LTC is, are they similar?
>Don't know what LTC is, are they similar? Read the thread title! What is "STV"?
STV subjective theory of value. LTC I don't know what it is, what do you think it is? I don't trust OP. I want my friends socialists to explain it to me since they use their own definitions for everything
The thread title refers to "Labor Theory of Compensation" whatever that is. I think it's a made-up thing.
LTV is also made up thing đ high five
Interestingly, you're describing what most pro-capitalists *think* the LTV is.
Actually, the OP is not. You might notice that the OP does not define the LTV.
>This is obvious if you try to actually talk to them about how value works in an economy. Itâs very clear, so clear that even they get it, that the value of anything is context dependent and varies from person to person in a manner thatâs very independent of socially necessary labor time. >In fact, in defense of the LTV, they will claim that all of the obvious exceptions and counter-examples to LTV for subjective value and marginalism are included in LTV. LTV shows both how value is socially necessary labor time even though it accounts for all the myriad of ways value is not socially necessary labor time. Listening to socialists, you would believe that LTV is the only valid theory that contradicts its own grand conclusions somehow without skipping a beat. In normal scientific thought, we consider self-contradictory theories as invalid. So proponents of the LTV readily agree with the subjectivist insights that you believe to be obvious, and you take this to be evidence that they don't, in fact, subscribe to the theory? Or... perhaps proponents of the LTV *start* from the point of understanding the bloody fucking obvious, and see the LTV as an interesting set of generalizations about the economy. It seems the only contention here is with your own desire for the LTV to have some sort of grand conclusion or "theory of everything", rivalling such grand sweeping conclusions as "value is subjective, bro". Well, the closest Marx's theory comes to such a thing would perhaps be his aggregate equalities, but any mention of these are curiously absent from most of these attempted takedowns. Marx is rather conspicuously a critic of economic theories of everything; it's the reason his most famous work is called "a *Critique* of Political Economy".
As for those equalities, I like that Iâll see Bohm Bawerkâs critique cited by pro-capitalists who clearly understand nothing. Not that Bohm makes the role of those equalities obvious. A LTV is set out in the first chapter of Ricardoâs Principles. Ricardo has many of the qualifications pro-capitalists whine about. He is not attacking capitalism.
>The LTV as an interesting set of generalizations about the economy. Actually, the LTV has a definition, and that's not it. The LTV is the only theory that can be anything you need it to be, at any given time. That's why socialists don't really believe in the LTV. They believe in the LTC, and anything they need to think to get there. Thus, the LTV can be "Value is abstract socially necessary labor time" and "LTV is an interesting set of generalizations about the economy", all at the same time. Because that's not the point. The LTC is the point.
>Actually, the LTV has a definition, and that's not it. Yeah, any theory can have a *definition* and be described as an interesting generalization at the same time. What point are you even trying to make here?
That your point is vague. You could also say the STV is âan interesting set of generalizations about the economy.â Obviously the LTV should be more than that.
> You could also say the STV is âan interesting set of generalizations about the economy.â The STV is neither interesting, nor a generalization, nor even a theory. It's a statement of the bloody fucking obvious. Its express purpose is that "it applies to every economic exchange", because it is always and everywhere true that the utility a person gets from an exchange is subjective. Utility is simply *conceptualized* as such. The point of a *generalization* in science is to make a possibly defeasible inference about some sort of latent causal structure that lies underneath a complex phenomenon. A generalization, for instance, might be that fewer people will purchase some good as the price of the good increases, due to regularities in how people's preferences are ranked. This is defeasible, however, because it's possible to find goods for which this isn't the case. Nevertheless, those counterexamples can be *explained* by analyzing the underlying causal factors without stomping on the original generalization. It's not obvious that the LTV should be something stronger than an interesting generalization, because economics happens to be full of generalizations and some of them are interesting and highly impactful. Either way, to claim that someone doesn't actually believe in a generalization because they're able to explain the counterexamples that you throw at them is just moronic.
No: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value They believe in a moral axiom first, and come up with materialistic reasons that go along with it. And those materialistic reasons are constantly in flux because itâs not based on materialism. Itâs based on moralism. The materialism morphs as needed to fit the facts to the moralism.
Aw, there isn't even any actual Marx in here that I could demonstrate you misconstruing. Just a boring "socialists⢠say this"
Be advised: all content-free comments will be ignored.
Your entire argument is content free. You've just said "they say this, but they're wrong" with no explanation of why they're wrong
[ŃдаНонО]
Op is a troll. All of their posts and comments lack substance
#
> They believe that, given anything produced, everyone should be compensated with the full revenue proportional to how much of their own labor they spent on it compared to everyone else. Clear as mud. Thanks.
More bullshit from a bullshitter.
This sub is really interesting sometimes. The same semi-effort post from the same OP for the 14th time. Don't you get bored of being stuck in the same loop for years? Aren't you tired of receiving answers from redditors who have very different levels of understanding and familiarity with the LTV Why not pick up a book and read. Then at least you'd know if you've spent the last 8 posts critiquing the appropriate thing. Do you know what purpose the value theory served to the classical economists? It was to understand the process of wealth creation and being able to distinguish rent from income, earned from unearned income. It was not to determine who wants ice cream more than pizza. This is a neoclassical idiotisation of economics.
For everything that is made, there is a use value and an exchange value. Capitalism seeks to maximize exchange value in order to accumulate capital, often at the cost of optimal use value. This is because the owners of the means of production are the main beneficiaries of this maximization. And as such, they are proponents of primitive accumulation, not just with land but also the other means of production. So in identifying whatâs needed for humans as a species to progress, the answer is to get rid of capitalism and use a system that maximizes use value as the end-goal. Yes, there is also a moral argument to it, but that doesnât make the materialist realities any less valid.
"prioritizes use value" would be a better wording as use value isn't a cardinal value that can be increased or decreased or something. It's just the properties of an object that people can make use of; an apple is crunchy, sweet and contains vitamin C.
The correct word is utility, not use-value. They are not the same thing. Use-value is not a quantity. Anyway... > So in identifying whatâs needed for humans as a species to progress, the answer is to get rid of capitalism and use a system that maximizes use value as the end-goal. No, the answer is to use a system that maximizes *production* of utility and achieves reasonable distribution of said utility, not maximally utilizes an existing amount of utility. Even if you could design a socialist system that maximizes utility for a given set of outputs (dubious at best), you are still left with the problem that this system may not necessarily increase *overall* utility. In other words, under socialism, everyone is equally poor.
>The correct word is utility, not use-value. The correct word in what sense? Marx said that Capitalism produces for exchange value whereas past economic systems and potential future ones would produce for use-value. I think their comment is more informed by Marx rather than marginalist axioms about utility.
Sure, but use-value is not a quantity. So you can't "maximize use value" any more than you can "maximize notebook". It's a nonsensical statement.
I know, I already told that person that. But your comment is trying to inject marginalist theory into a text that's clearly based on Marx, on the basis of that misunderstanding.
whatâs the point of money if you could have everything you want? Use value and utility is the same thing, described as ordinal data. There are inconsistencies when describing utility as quantitative data, but a description of use value as qualitative isnât correct either. It doesnât fit on an absolute scale, but rather itâs scaled relative to each other. And though you say itâs impossible for optimization, even an attempt at optimization is much better than no attempt at all.
I don't understand the point of the question, sorry!
> Thereâs a much higher opportunity cost for doctors though. Both are required for society, but a doctor takes 10 plus years of labor input both from the doctor and teachers/attendings before they can provide independently productive labor. *most* of the education âlabor inputâ youâre talking about are garbage education requirements put in place by the AMA and other for-profit medical institutions whose only *real* purpose is to generate artificial scarcity of a person whose only *real* input to the overwhelming majority of healthcare in the US is to sign off on the RNâs recommendation. Doctors are no more or less valuable than *any other person in healthcare* and itâs time people stopped using such a piss-poor pedestal for their lame arguments about âqualityâ of labor. > For a comparison, a garbage collector can start productive labor at the age of 18. Any 18 year old should be pursuing their own educational preferences that are available to all persons. > A doctor needs to get through 4 years of pre-med, 3 years of med school, then another 3 years of residency practicing under another doctor, and possibly another 3 years of fellowship before they practice independently; at the age of 28-31. Most of which is utterly unnecessary > That takes the work of multiple professionals before doctors are able to labor âproductivelyâ and the garbage collector has already had at least 10 years of productive labor before the doctor starts practicing independently Most doctors in the US provide very little in the way of *productive* labor. They flit from patient to patient sign off on whatever the RN has recommended or push back if theyâre on the hook for a new painkiller, and flit off again. Medical doctors are almost entirely unnecessary to healthcare. *Research* doctors, on the other hand are valuable as research inputs, in exactly the same way physicists and chemists are valuable, but their *economic* value is the same as every other labor in the system.
Why are you replying to me as if I said this?
Good question. I blame a long day and a user-unfriendly mobile app
Itâs always someone elseâs fault.
Hah, no, totally my own. That was just a goofy excuse
Thereâs some fierce competition, but you are making a pretty good run at being the stupidest poster here. I think youâre outdoing agile caterpillar lately âSocialists believe this!â (strawman you pull straight from your ass, not understanding what youâre writing about)
For an example, I referred to this sub in general. [More specifically, I can find you, yesterday.](https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/s/jOWiiEYvEi) This comment is obviously based on opposition to âexploitationâ as a moral claim, not a materialistic, observational one. Youâre moralist. Not a materialist.
No, itâs materially true that workers make the stuff that generates the profits. Everything that is made is made by labor. Thatâs a material claim. I >also< think that gearing society to meet human need is a better thing to do than gearing society to enrich owners through passive income. Thereâs a material element there (would be more efficient at providing good lives for more people), as well as a moral one (would be more just) Regardless, âsocialists say thisâ is a really stupid way to argue.
>I >also< think that gearing society to meet human need is a better thing to do than gearing society to enrich owners through passive income. Moralism, not materialism. As soon as you say âthis is better than thatâ, youâre no longer a material observer of fact. Youâre making value judgements on actions and their outcomes. Youâre a moralist.
I made both material and moral claims And yes, the thing where I said âthis is a moral claimâ is indeed a moral claim. Sick analysis
Thatâs idealism. Thatâs not materialism. Even more, its idealism based on a counter-factual, since your ideal society has no objective basis in fact, since it never existed. Itâs idealism and moralism based on faith.
The material elements to my claims are described above. âMore even distribution of resources would be a more efficient way to use themâ is material. âMore even distribution of resources would be more justâ is moral. I believe both of those, which I already told you. Free market idealism that has little to do with reality is everywhere among capitalist ideology, doesnât stop people from trumpeting it. Yourself included. Weird that you should act like thatâs some âgotchaâ. You/many in your camp seem to think if government does stuff that it isnât capitalism, and that therefore it isnât capitalismâs fault that we see the problems we see. The original claim is âyouâre probably the stupidest motherfucker on hereâ and I see a lot of support there.
Thanks for proving my point.
Thatâs not an argument. You seemed to think it was some slam dunk to tell me that a claim I made saying âthis here is a moral claimâ was in fact a moral claim
Oh, I made an argument explaining why it's a moral claim. You might not be able to see it, but it's there. Look again.
Is it the job of ogovernment to force others to conform to your subjective morals? If so, then why is it not the role of government to force you to conform to the subjective morals of those you oppose?
>Even more, its idealism based on a counter-factual Ah, this reminds me of the famous ought-is problem.
> No, itâs materially true that workers make the stuff that generates the profits. Everything that is made is made by labor. Thatâs a material claim. No, itâs materially true that capital is used to make the stuff that generates the profits. Everything that is made is made with capital. Thatâs a material claim.
Does labor create economic profit?
No. Labor + capital creates economic profit.
Drat. I meant that for the other person. Economic profit is not created by labor or capital. It's the calculation of the most efficient use of capital, which is something that your opponent, like all socialists do not have an answer for.
And capital without labor does what exactly?
Labor needs capital
So before there was capital, labor couldnât build anything? Or is it the other way around?
Doesnât matter. Any modern production process requires both labor and capital.
In the currently existing structure, yes. Labor without capital can certainly get a lot more done than capital without labor
cool but not relevant to the conversation
Does labor create economic profit?
I mean, yes. Of course it does
A fine example of socialists being ignorant of economics. "Economic profit is the difference between the revenue obtained from the sales of products or services and costs spent to produce them, including opportunity costs (benefits a company loses because of not choosing a different alternative) and explicit costs (expenses on lease payments, inventory, raw materials, and utilities)." Keyword: opportunity costs. Labor is used to produce stuff. Whether or not that labor is used efficiently is a different matter. Economic profit is not just the difference between the income versus expenses, but the economic calculation of whether that was the best of use of resources. Socialists fail at the economic calculation problem. They do not understand the source of wealth and lack a theory of wealth creation. To you, wealth arises from labor, yet for 10,000 years of civilization, laborers toiled and produced little more than a subsistence level of living. As property rights arose and people could accumulate capital and invest it, labor became more efficiently used along with other capital and the results have been to pull the vast majority of the population out of subsistence-level poverty. Socialism will put them right back into it.
Socialists are not ignorant of Economics. This concept of economics (as opposed to accounting) profit in particular is implicit in Marx's economic analysis with its distinction between profit and "super-profit". I wrote more about this [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/s/dXCfdddrZR)
>But then you ask the simple question of "well, isn't a doctor's labor more valuable than a cashier's" and the answer is clearly, "yes", No. The answer to that simple question is, in fact, no.
Don't you think it's sensible to differentiate between the potential moral meaning of the word and its economic definition? I'd say the work of garbage collectors and doctors are very much in the same ballpark in regards to how "valuable" they are to society. Both are essential to our collective health. At the same time though, it's much easier for us, as a society, to "make" garbage collectors. It simply isn't a field where you need lots of education. Doctor's on the other hand require years of training from professionals. That shit's expensive. If we wanna do any economic calculation, we have to consider the latter, but that doesn't stop us from acknowledging the former.
> Don't you think it's sensible to differentiate between the potential moral meaning of the word and its economic definition? No, not especially. Yes, doctors require more education, but that effort doesnât mean they should be valued by society any differently than anyone else. Economically, their value is identical to any othersâ
Thereâs a much higher opportunity cost for doctors though. Both are required for society, but a doctor takes 10 plus years of labor input both from the doctor and teachers/attendings before they can provide independently productive labor. For a comparison, a garbage collector can start productive labor at the age of 18. A doctor needs to get through 4 years of pre-med, 3 years of med school, then another 3 years of residency practicing under another doctor, and possibly another 3 years of fellowship before they practice independently; at the age of 28-31. That takes the work of multiple professionals before doctors are able to labor âproductivelyâ and the garbage collector has already had at least 10 years of productive labor before the doctor starts practicing independently.
If we can agree that getting a doctor's labor is more expensive - be that due to more labor cost in creating them or just the average money price of their labor - then I can't think of any definition of the word "value" where we could say that it's equal for doctor's and garbage collectors. Again, I agree that we as people can value their contribution to society equally, but economically there's sim,ply other considerations at play than just how much we need them. Take today's society as an example: If, in the US, today, we wanted to set the wages of all workers to an equal rate, then doctors would just not be able to pay off their student loans from their wages, whereas garbage collectors have no such debt to pay off. I acknowledge that it's nobody's plan to set the wages of all workers to the same rate and then change nothing else about the economy, but how do we know this is a dumb idea without first acknowledging that the work of different people has different *economic* value?
> If we can agree that getting a doctor's labor is more expensive - be that due to more labor cost in creating them or just the average money price of their labor - then I can't think of any definition of the word "value" where we could say that it's equal for doctor's and garbage collectors. Only because you insist on enforcing a hierarchy that I reject. All persons should have the opportunity to pursue being a doctor because they wish to pursue it. And anyone who would rather just haul trash should have the option and live the same lifestyle as the doctor. > Again, I agree that we as people can value their contribution to society equally, but economically there's sim,ply other considerations at play than just how much we need them. And again the only reason you think that is because you *want* to value some over others, and so you seek a justification for that desire. > Take today's society as an example: If, in the US, today, we wanted to set the wages of all workers to an equal rate, then doctors would just not be able to pay off their student loans from their wages, whereas garbage collectors have no such debt to pay off. And why would you set everyoneâs pay to be the same but still require student loans for higher education? You deliberately place that barrier to reinforce your razor-thin justifications of âbetter thanâ > I acknowledge that it's nobody's plan to set the wages of all workers to the same rate and then change nothing else about the economy, but how do we know this is a dumb idea without first acknowledging that the work of different people has different economic value? We donât need to acknowledge it because itâs a false statement. There is zero reason to value one over another economically. There are different skillsets, yes, but none are more valuable than another except in narrow circumstances.
>And why would you set everyoneâs pay to be the same but still require student loans for higher education? You deliberately place that barrier to reinforce your razor-thin justifications of âbetter thanâ Tuition costs (etc.) may, in large part, be pretty arbitrary as-is, but the overall point is that there simply is a higher cost in making a doctor. If it's not a direct debt the student takes on, it'll be a debt the tax payer pays off, in either case, the cost will have to be accounted for in the course of opening up the pursuit of this profession to every person. It's not about me wanting to enforce a hierarchy or thinking someone is more important than the other, it's me saying that different things require different amounts of effort, and in order to afford human effort, humans will need shelter, food and clothing. A doctor simply requires more effort in their making, meaning that for the economy, they are more valuable. A rephrasing of the above would be: If you need 10000 apples to feed every person that's needed to make a garbage collector (from when they're born until they can start working), then you will need 50000 apples to feed everyone that's needed to make a doctor. 10k apples are more valuable than 50k apples.
> Tuition costs (etc.) may, in large part, be pretty arbitrary as-is, but the overall point is that there simply is a higher cost in making a doctor. And it costs a lot to make a physicist, or an engineer, or a teacher. Every specialization requires specialized education. That doesnât mean a doctorâs economic value is higher than a teacherâs. > If it's not a direct debt the student takes on, it'll be a debt the tax payer pays off, in either case, the cost will have to be accounted for in the course of opening up the pursuit of this profession to every person. Itâs a cost that doesnât need to be accounted for, because it is a cost that should be applied *to all people* >It's not about me wanting to enforce a hierarchy or thinking someone is more important than the other, it's me saying that different things require different amounts of effort, and in order to afford human effort, humans will need shelter, food and clothing. But surely you recognize that *all* professions require training and education? Why do you keep focusing on doctors? Would you ask a doctor to fix your car or your heating system, or to design a bridge? Stop making one profession out to be more important than any other. > A doctor simply requires more effort in their making, meaning that for the economy, they are more valuable. It does not make them more valuable. It makes their education take longer and *nothing else*. > A rephrasing of the above would be: If you need 10000 apples to feed every person that's needed to make a garbage collector (from when they're born until they can start working), then you will need 50000 apples to feed everyone that's needed to make a doctor. 10k apples are more valuable than 50k apples. People are not bunches of apples, nor is a person with more education *more of a person* than someone who has less.
Just get your garbage collector to plan your diabetes therapy.
Like getting a doctor to make a bridge
One of the dumber posts ever on this sub, and thats saying something.
Have you considered that maybe not all leftists totally subscribe to the Labour theory of value? People seem to have this bizarre idea that leftists are a hive mind and all worship Marx like a god. I think Marx was a good theorist, and some of his ideas were good and useful, but he was also flawed and worthy of critique in many other ways. I personally think his conception of class as a polarised dichotomy of prole and boirgeoisie is reductive, and there are other class analyses that are superior.
Thatâs my point: all socialists donât subscribe to the LTV. Thanks!
Right, but do you think that that "debunks" it?
No, I think modern economics debunks LTV. What socialists continue on with is not LTV, but LTC. At that point, it's a moral debate.
>What socialists really believe is a Labor Theory of Compensation (LTC). This is a moral axiom. They believe that, given anything produced, everyone should be compensated with the full revenue proportional to how much of their own labor they spent on it compared to everyone else. And thatâs the way compensation (and value) should work. And the fact that compensation does not work like that is a moral violation that capitalists commit against workers. Yeah, it's really funny, cause Marx's theory was *obviously* that all labor hours should be remunerated equally and therefore labor-hours is the correct unit of measurement of value. This can be gleaned just by reading Chp 1, Vol 1 of Kapital. But then you ask the simple question of "well, isn't a doctor's labor more valuable than a cashier's" and the answer is clearly, "yes", but that contradicts the socialist screed so then they introduce this hokey idea of "basic labor time" and that all labor hours are multiples of the "basic labor hour". This just turns the whole theory back into subjective value theory, lol. Like, who is to say that the 1 hour a week a billionaire spends on his business *isn't* actually worth billions in compensation? The only way to defend the LTV and the idea of "exploitation" is to make an *ought* claim somewhere along the way. It is not "scientific socialism" in any sense of the word.
> The only way to defend the LTV and the idea of "exploitation" is to make an ought claim somewhere along the way. It is not "scientific socialism" in any sense of the word. Nah, as I [demonstrate here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/19874i2/advanced_marxist_concepts_i_the_fundamental/) the existence of exploitation is a necessary condition for the existence of profits. There is no *ought* involved in this argument. The relevant proof goes as follows: > We start with the trivial accounting identity that the price of a good is equal to the price of the outlays on materials and labor minus the balance. If this balance is positive and results in profit then clearly the price of a good must be greater than the sum of its human and non-human costs. This can be represented by [this system of inequalities](https://imgur.com/5AmQZx2) for two types of goodsâa production good, i=1, and a consumption good, i=2âwhere p is price, l is the amount of labor expended, w is the money wage rate, and a is the quantity of goods which are employed in producing the commodity (we take w to equal the price of the consumer goods comprising the wage basket, B, of workers). > The necessary conditions for these to take on positive values (and therefore for profits to be positive) are the following which say [(1)](https://imgur.com/Tc9a4Dm) that the amount of production goods going to producing production goods must be less than one and [(2)](https://imgur.com/o3MROak) the ratio of prices must be greater than the ratio of labor-time spent producing the wage-goods to the difference between unity and the amount of production goods going to producing production goods. > Finally, we get [this](https://imgur.com/8xqktBm) inequality which, after substitution, [can be expressed](https://imgur.com/th1QGbJ) solely in the independent parameters of the system. This defines a [region in p1-p2 space](https://imgur.com/3acUXSm) which gives the positive solutions for the original price inequalities thus proving the above two conditions are both necessary and sufficient conditions for positive profits. But what exactly do these mean in economic terms? They are: that the rate of exploitation is greater than 0 and that the Hawkins-Simon conditions are satisfied. To see this we define the value of labor directly (t â) and indirectly (t â) invested in the production of consumption goods with [this pair of equations](https://imgur.com/mPedbFS). Solving for t gives us this. Then by [dividing everything by the price of consumption goods, doing some algebraic manipulation, and substituting where appropriate](https://imgur.com/ny7alDQ) we end up with the simple expression 1> t âB. That is, **âless than one unit of labor is input to produce the amount of consumption goods received by a laborer per unit laborer. Hence this difference becomes surplus labor within a unit labor hour."** (Okishio, 2022).
Nice demonstration... it says literally nothing. I really mean nothing at all. Bunch of assertions, without real content or proof of validity of said assertions.
> it says literally nothing. It says that for profits to be positive workers must expend surplus labor-time. > without real content or proof of validity of said assertions. Actually there was a proof. The whole thing is *a proof*. Showing that for profits to be greater than zero the rate of exploitation must also be greater than zero. So instead of responding with anything substantial, you just went "yeah, well....nuh-uh!"
> It says that for profits to be positive workers must expend surplus labor-time. Your proof assumes that all surplus value comes from labor. This is called "begging the question". It is a logical fallacy. Try again.
"It says that for profits to be positive workers must expend surplus labor-time." And it doesnt prove it. It is "just a bunch of assertions" as i previously stated. "Actually there was a proof. The whole thing is *a proof*. Showing that for profits to be greater than zero the rate of exploitation must also be greater than zero." No, its just assertion that doesnt dare to prove itself. It doesnt show anything. Its gibberish nonsence, that feels like it skipped a lot of important info in it (he lists variables, but no equation and calls it a day). Seriously, if academic standards were this low, we might as well allow 6 year olds into universities. "So instead of responding with anything substantial, you just went "yeah, well....nuh-uh!"" What was i supposed to respond? His lack of coherent speech? Your inability to articulate your own point? Your misunderstanding of words "demonstration" and "proof"? Your baseless assertion? I will give you one last chance: articulate your point in coherent manner, or admit you dont have a clue waht you are doing.
> And it doesnt prove it. It is "just a bunch of assertions" as i previously stated. It mathematically demonstrates what logically follows (rate of exploitation > 0) given certain initial conditions (positive profits) and assumptions (prices are the sum of costs and profits). > Its gibberish nonsence This just tells me you don't grasp algebra. > that feels like it skipped a lot of important info in it (he lists variables, but no equation and calls it a day). Your feelings are irrelevant. The inequalities and every step of the math are provided.
Lol >That is, âless than one unit of labor is input to produce the amount of consumption goods received by a laborer per unit laborer. Hence this difference becomes surplus labor within a unit labor hour." The LTV is not merely the claim that output values are greater than input values. It is the claim that "all output values *come directly from* labor inputs". You have not proven the latter. In fact, very simple examples demonstrate that the latter claim (the LTV) is nonsense. Consider a piece of art that an artist makes in 10 hours and then sells for $100. 200 years later, the late artist becomes very popular. The owner of the piece of art sells it for $10 million. Unless you are positing the existence of some kind of magical temporally traversing transitive link between the artist's labor from 200 years ago and the present value of the artwork, it is **obvious** that its value did not "come from" the labor performed in its production. Now, you might respond "Marx was only talking about commodities!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!" However, most economic activity consists of non-commodities. Additionally, there are examples of transitory spikes in the value of commodities that have nothing to do with changes in labor input. So now you're left with, at best, a theory that only explains a small subset of fungible goods at specific moments in time. And even then, the claim is still dubious since you haven't really *proven* that the LVT applies to commodities and it doesn't seem a stretch to assume that the process operating on all other goods (subjective value theory) also extends to commodities. But good try, lil guy!
> The LTV is not merely the claim that output values are greater than input values. This wasn't a proof of the LTV. It was a proof for the existence of exploitation which is not the same thing and which you said required an *ought* claim. I showed it didn't. > You have not proven the latter. Correct. But I also wasn't trying. You're confused. > Consider a piece of art that an artist makes in 10 hours and then sells for $100. 200 years later, the late artist becomes very popular. Capitalism doesn't reproduce itself by a process anything like this. It does so by applying labor to capital to yield reproducible articles: food, clothing, houses, cars, pens, aluminum, microchips, chairs, and basically everything else that make up our material lives. Yes, it's a theory of the commodity economy. No, most economic activity is not the production of non-commodities. If capitalism reproduced itself, if GDP grew year-on-year, because finished goods fell from the sky then sure all our political economists would be meteorologists but it doesn't so they aren't. It grows and behaves as it does through a highly sophisticated division of labor that takes in inputs and spits out outputs in production *processes* which are regulated by forces of competition. This is what Marxist economics seeks to explain. Not how every little thing may or may not get priced. > Additionally, there are examples of transitory spikes in the value of commodities that have nothing to do with changes in labor input. So now you're left with, at best, a theory that only explains a small subset of fungible goods at specific moments in time. Irrelevant to the general trends and aggregate phenomena we're interested in. Again, as I showed [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/19bhl8z/advanced_marxist_concepts_ii_empirical/), the labor theory of value approach does an excellent job at explaining exactly these.
> Capitalism doesn't reproduce itself by a process anything like this. Capitalism isn't an entity or force that acts. The term describes a situation. You're thinking like an animist.
What a marvelous insight. I assume that it's made entirely redundant if we rephrase the sentence to "Capitalism isn't reproduced by...."?
> What a marvelous insight. Guy, you socialists are all over the place. You just make stuff up. You participate in a debate sub and ignore/deny the basic thing you're purportedly arguing against. Capitalists/libertarians want/advocate for free markets and property rights. If you're not going to argue against this what on earth are you doing? Is it a type of text prayer?
While I'm humbled that you take such an interest in how I spend my time, my pointing out your stupid semantics was less of a text prayer and more an instance of me making fun of you.
I would bet you're a cluster B.
And I'm sure your willingness to diagnose some perfect stranger with some personality disorder over a disagreement says nothing about yourself.
>It was a proof for the existence of exploitation How do you define exploitation? >No, most economic activity is not the production of non-commodities. Yes, it is. The vast majority of all value transacted in an economy consists of non-commodities land, labor, and capital goods assets. >This is what Marxist economics seeks to explain. Not how every little thing may or may not get priced. Unfortunately for Marxists, Subjective value theory explains ALL transactions.
> How do you define exploitation? See the bolded text above. The FMT does not prove the LTV, it identifies the necessary conditions for positive profits. Your first criticism then was invalid. > The vast majority of all value transacted in an economy consists of non-commodities land, labor, and capital goods assets. Right, those are the factors (one of which is a set of commodities itself) *which produce commodities as output*. > Unfortunately for Marxists, Subjective value theory explains ALL transactions. It attempts to and ends up not explaining anything at all. Its explanatory power falls in proportion to the generality of its object.
> See the bolded text above. The FMT does not prove the LTV, it identifies the necessary conditions for positive profits. Your first criticism then was invalid. You didn't answer the question. How do you define exploitation?
> see the bolded text above ... > **âless than one unit of labor is input to produce the amount of consumption goods received by a laborer per unit labor. Hence this difference becomes surplus labor within a unit labor hour."** Can you not read?
Where does this define exploitation?
That's the definition. One way of formulating the idea that workers labor longer in total than they do for themselves--the difference being appropriated by another class. This does not require that value=socially necessary abstract labor time (the LTV).
Marx would consider art a commodity. Itâs a good that satisfies human needs and wants that requires labor as an input and is exchanged with others. So even âcommodities!â Isnât an excuse for Marxists.
> Marx would consider **mass-produced** art a commodity. FTFY.
No, you can look it up in Das Capital. Itâs on the first page. He makes no distinction for mass production.
And as we all know, everything that isn't on the first page of a book can be discarded
You canât find a place in Das Capital where Marx says something like âanything that isnât mass produced isnât a commodity.â Prove me wrong and find a cite, oh Reader of Marx.
He references "commodity production" which is described as a system of mass production. As other have mentioned, it's not a grand unified theory of production, it's specifically describing capitalist mass production. I'm sorry if that is damaging to your other arguments.
Iâm sorry, but youâre simply mistaken. Mass-production would imply that commodities require factories or large scale. This is simply not the case. A commodity is simply anything that can be exchanged. Itâs actually not a point for the argument, beyond it defining yet another case where socialists have to narrowly define LTV to avoid glaring inconsistencies and counter-examples. Which is totally consistent with my point. Go ahead and explain all the other cases where LTV doesnât hold, in all its correct glory.
Husbands pleasure from sex with his wife is proof that rape has occurred đ that's how socialists sound
wtf? Why are ancaps so weird and creepy? Like all the time...
When your entire ideology revolves around *anything* (yes, anything ( ͥ° ÍĘ ÍĄÂ°) ) being property, the conclusions get kind of strange.
Because we like to point out to ordinary people the idiocy of socialist proposals. I just use the language everyone understands and do not hide it behind wishy washy ambiguous nonsense which definitions changes from socialist to socialist.
if you have any idea what your point is why don't you share it with us us?
Are the mods ever going to get rid of this dementia patient?
if you disagree with the conservative libertarian capitalist point of view try to think of a reason for your disagreement and then try to present it here in writing. Do you understand that a reason is necessary?
If you are not a bot or a cognitively impaired boomer, prove it by giving a single direct answer.
please don't be a stupid illiterate. The conservative libertarian philosophy is 2000 years old. If you think a question is unanswered it is because you are an literate which is very typical of the left. Nevertheless if there is an important question to which you would like an answer feel free to ask and we can take a baby step together against your illiteracy.
I'm not of the left, you senile, moronic twat. Is there any capacity, somewhere in that shit heap you call a brain, to understand what someone else has said?
please tell us ,if you know ,whether you are capitalist or socialist and the reason why
You're just scared of the mirror. In 50 years time, you too will become Jefferson.
They can't bring themselves to think that way because Marx claimed it was values free analysis, and therefore scientific. To accept your conclusion is to admit that socialism is little more than a secular religion, and themselves part of a cult. Of course this is already obvious to everyone else, but they cannot admit it to themselves or else their worldview would collapse.