Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Marxism #9 Labour Theory of Value

Caesercel

Caesercel

mentally crippled by lonely teen years
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Posts
25,043
Online time
1m 26s
In my last post on Value we ended up with the question, where does exchange value of a market commodity come from? How do we get the sense that a PlayStation 5 is a more valuable item than a ceramic coffee mug, irrespective of whether a particular person games or not?

Labour Theory of Value is a concept that appears in the works of classical economist Adam Smith which was later incorporated by David Ricardo. According to this theory the value/worth of commodity is fundamentally determined by the quanta of labour that goes into making it. So commodities that require more human work/effort/labour to bring into existence from scratch are more valuable. So in Marx's work this homogenous unit of labour becomes the source of Exchange Value.

A PlayStation 5 seems more valuable than a ceramic coffee mug because more human effort went into making it. From mining the raw material to manufacturing the parts to assembling it all. Same thing makes a car more valuable than a cake. And now that we have established a sort of measuring tape for determining exchange value, we can assign a number to it.
 
Last edited:
Isn't what you're describing essentially just Ricardo's theory? A PS5 only has more value than a ceramic coffee mug because it took more socially necessary labor to produce, but under capitalism we never deal with labour directly because everything is measured in money. This means the LToV is really a monetary theory of value. Markets, through supply and demand, can make things "seem more valuable" even if the labour hasn't changed.
 
This means the LToV is really a monetary theory of value.
Yeah I intend to tie this to money eventually in next few posts.

. Markets, through supply and demand, can make things "seem more valuable" even if the labour hasn't changed.
I thought so too while contemplating on this. Because ultimately, people directly interact with money as the measure of value. But the monetary function does seem to be contingent on labour value itself since more work required, directly translates into more man hours and more wages in monetary terms. Making the base price higher for the commodity to break even. And macroeconomically speaking, every penny in that base price is going into a human's pocket, from the miner to the factory worker. Therefore it's labour all the way down.

This is where the "socially necessary" part comes in. If society is not willing to pay for all the labour/effort it took to make that commodity (i.e what we call low demand in modern terms) the venture would not be profitable and it would fail. As for scarcity making things more valuable, that's also true, but if the labour required is on lower end then to me it looks like the market needs a course correction because clearly the demand isn't being met. The biggest issue I can think of is natural resources themselves. Because their scarcity (and hence value) is not contingent on scarcity of labour.

Also, interesting first post
 
Last edited:
Some of my notes:

Commodity = product created out of human labour, having a value (something that satisfies a human need or want), which can be exchanged for money or other commodities. Dual nature of commodity:
use value = the value of a commodity expressed in its consumption for the sake of human use.
exchange value = arises or is seen when commodities are exchanged for other commodities or money.

Labour creates use values, and they are transformed into commodities when they are exchanged:
Abstract labour = stripped-down labour that, like the commodity of labour power it arose from, produces value (though it appears as exchange value) when labour-power is exchanged.
Concrete labour = produces use value.

Labour power = the ability or capacity of the worker to labour, and the capitalist’s ability to acquire it like just another commodity. It has a use value which can become a source of even more value when it is applied in production. The unique nature of labour power becomes apparent here.

Proletariat = the free seller of his labour power; he does not own the means of production. As such, he is only free to sell his labour power and is dependent on the bourgeois to pay him.
Bourgeois = owns the means of production and extracts surplus value from the proletariat.

Since labour power itself is a commodity, it has its own cost, that is, the labour time to reproduce it and the resources needed to keep the worker alive so he can sell his labour power.

Socially necessary labour time = the amount of time required to produce a commodity under normal conditions of production and skill.

Surplus value = value created out of unpaid labour.
Valorization is the production of surplus value by adding labour to it, which increases its value. The commodity that can be consumed at the same time as it is produced is labour power; labour power adds surplus value into the commodity. Labour power can be bought by capitalists.

The rate of extraction of surplus value = the amount of surplus labour time divided by the necessary time needed to reproduce labour power; thus, the subsistence of the worker also plays a role in his surplus exploitation.

Commodity fetishism is the appearance of social relations between people as relations between things; one aspect is the mistaken belief that exchange value is inherent to objects rather than merely an expression of value.

Exchange value may need an equivalent in order for it to be traded for other commodities in a capitalist economy; this equivalent is money. The relation between money and capital can be expressed as C–M–C (commodity exchanged for money, which is exchanged for commodities). The price is the monetary expression of the commodity’s value.

Capital = surplus value is converted into money when a commodity is exchanged; this becomes capital, as capital is value in motion. Capital valorizes itself. The relationship between money and capital can be expressed as M–C–M′ (money exchanged for acquiring commodities and more money after they are sold; this “more” part is surplus value), and when it is invested:

Constant capital = the cost/investment into things that only transfer a part of value into production but are needed for the acquisition of means of production, such as factories or instruments of production.
Variable capital = the money that has to be paid to the labourer. The investment (or extraction of surplus value) on this can be increased by increasing the productivity (relative surplus value) of labour or increasing working hours (absolute surplus value).

The capitalists employ various strategies to compete with each other in exploiting surplus value, such as simple co-operation, the division of labour, manufacture, and machinery and large-scale industry.

Total capital advanced = constant capital + variable capital.
Commodity = constant capital + variable capital + surplus value.

Wages = these are the price of labour power, but since labour and labour power are inseparable, wages appear as the price of labour itself. All forms of wages try to conceal the nature of exploitation of surplus value from the worker, from time-based wages, per piece produced, and the differences between national wages (arising out of production differences).

As we saw earlier:
Surplus value is transformed into capital; M–C–M′ causes accumulation of capital. This accumulation creates a reserve army of labour, as a constant supply of labour is needed for accumulation. By keeping many workers systemically unemployed, the capitalist sows desperation among them and creates a stable supply of labour at even lower wages.

Instruments of labour = tools required for performing labour and the means through which labour acts upon nature.
Objects of labour = things on which labour is exerted.
Means of labour = instruments of labour + auxiliary conditions.
Means of production = objects of labour (land, farmlands, forests) + means of labour (mines and factories that are conditions of production).

Relations of production = the relation between different people on the basis of their role in production or class.
Mode of production = an epoch that can be derived by analysing it as a combination of relations of production and productive forces.
Productive forces = the productive forces of society consist of labour-power, the means of production, and the level of technical and practical knowledge through which material production is carried out. Productive forces ultimately play a role in the transformation of the mode of production.
 
Some of my notes:

Commodity = product created out of human labour, having a value (something that satisfies a human need or want), which can be exchanged for money or other commodities. Dual nature of commodity:
use value = the value of a commodity expressed in its consumption for the sake of human use.
exchange value = arises or is seen when commodities are exchanged for other commodities or money.

Labour creates use values, and they are transformed into commodities when they are exchanged:
Abstract labour = stripped-down labour that, like the commodity of labour power it arose from, produces value (though it appears as exchange value) when labour-power is exchanged.
Concrete labour = produces use value.

Labour power = the ability or capacity of the worker to labour, and the capitalist’s ability to acquire it like just another commodity. It has a use value which can become a source of even more value when it is applied in production. The unique nature of labour power becomes apparent here.

Proletariat = the free seller of his labour power; he does not own the means of production. As such, he is only free to sell his labour power and is dependent on the bourgeois to pay him.
Bourgeois = owns the means of production and extracts surplus value from the proletariat.

Since labour power itself is a commodity, it has its own cost, that is, the labour time to reproduce it and the resources needed to keep the worker alive so he can sell his labour power.

Socially necessary labour time = the amount of time required to produce a commodity under normal conditions of production and skill.

Surplus value = value created out of unpaid labour.
Valorization is the production of surplus value by adding labour to it, which increases its value. The commodity that can be consumed at the same time as it is produced is labour power; labour power adds surplus value into the commodity. Labour power can be bought by capitalists.

The rate of extraction of surplus value = the amount of surplus labour time divided by the necessary time needed to reproduce labour power; thus, the subsistence of the worker also plays a role in his surplus exploitation.

Commodity fetishism is the appearance of social relations between people as relations between things; one aspect is the mistaken belief that exchange value is inherent to objects rather than merely an expression of value.

Exchange value may need an equivalent in order for it to be traded for other commodities in a capitalist economy; this equivalent is money. The relation between money and capital can be expressed as C–M–C (commodity exchanged for money, which is exchanged for commodities). The price is the monetary expression of the commodity’s value.

Capital = surplus value is converted into money when a commodity is exchanged; this becomes capital, as capital is value in motion. Capital valorizes itself. The relationship between money and capital can be expressed as M–C–M′ (money exchanged for acquiring commodities and more money after they are sold; this “more” part is surplus value), and when it is invested:

Constant capital = the cost/investment into things that only transfer a part of value into production but are needed for the acquisition of means of production, such as factories or instruments of production.
Variable capital = the money that has to be paid to the labourer. The investment (or extraction of surplus value) on this can be increased by increasing the productivity (relative surplus value) of labour or increasing working hours (absolute surplus value).

The capitalists employ various strategies to compete with each other in exploiting surplus value, such as simple co-operation, the division of labour, manufacture, and machinery and large-scale industry.

Total capital advanced = constant capital + variable capital.
Commodity = constant capital + variable capital + surplus value.

Wages = these are the price of labour power, but since labour and labour power are inseparable, wages appear as the price of labour itself. All forms of wages try to conceal the nature of exploitation of surplus value from the worker, from time-based wages, per piece produced, and the differences between national wages (arising out of production differences).

As we saw earlier:
Surplus value is transformed into capital; M–C–M′ causes accumulation of capital. This accumulation creates a reserve army of labour, as a constant supply of labour is needed for accumulation. By keeping many workers systemically unemployed, the capitalist sows desperation among them and creates a stable supply of labour at even lower wages.

Instruments of labour = tools required for performing labour and the means through which labour acts upon nature.
Objects of labour = things on which labour is exerted.
Means of labour = instruments of labour + auxiliary conditions.
Means of production = objects of labour (land, farmlands, forests) + means of labour (mines and factories that are conditions of production).

Relations of production = the relation between different people on the basis of their role in production or class.
Mode of production = an epoch that can be derived by analysing it as a combination of relations of production and productive forces.
Productive forces = the productive forces of society consist of labour-power, the means of production, and the level of technical and practical knowledge through which material production is carried out. Productive forces ultimately play a role in the transformation of the mode of production.
Sounds about right. I'm a little bit confused on Abstract Labour and Concrete Labour. I guess Abstract Labour is labour as a homogeneous entity akin to socially necessary labour time and Concrete Labour is the actual physical labour that produces a particular thing.
 
Thats dumb. Labour doesn't create value. Value is subjective.
 
Thats dumb. Labour doesn't create value. Value is subjective.
I will refer back to my previous where the nature of commodity value was established


Even people who have no subjective use for a commodity can understand it's social value born from the socially necessary (that is demanded) labour that went into making it
 
Last edited:
I will refer back to my previous where the nature of commodity value was established

I already saw it but it doesn't help.
Why do you think value is objective, when it is clearly subjective ?
 
I already saw it but it doesn't help.
Why do you think value is objective, when it is clearly subjective ?
Well I never said it's objective, in the sense that the value is ontological. I.e. it would persist in the absence of human mind and society. But it's not individually subjective either as my previous thread and this thread shows.

I know Subjective Theory of Value is championed by the Austrian school , which seems to suggest that value is individually subjective. But none of their gobblesmack will change the fact that on a societal level an average car is more valuable than an average cheese cake and that has everything to do with all the extra effort, man-hours and wages that went into making the car. Effort and labour that could've been spent elsewhere.

Pure individualism doesn't make sense anyway. It may come as a surprise to some people but we do...live in a society. A particular commodity may be valueless to a particular individual but that individual will never be free from how the society that sorrounds him, the one he literally lives in, values that commodity. And labour is fundamentally valuable because literally everything else that we subjectively value comes from it.

And this is not even touching on Hume's argument that every piece of knowledge we have and our values (including how we value things) come from outside.
 
Last edited:
an average car is more valuable than an average cheese cake
I could afford to buy another small car right now, but I wont, because I value my money more than this car, but I do buy cheese regularly, meaning those cheeses are more valuable than my money in my eyes, so you're statement obviously does not apply to me, thus value is indeed subjective.

To put it simply, if Person A sells a PS5 to Person B for 100$, that means Person A thinks the PS5 is worth equal or under 100$, but Person B values the PS5 at least 100$.
Appart from the very specific situation, where both would evaluate the PS5 and 100$ to the exact value, though if it would the case, the trade would probably not happen because of the trade cost (drive to the other guy's place).

As for the rest, I'm not going to bother replying, I didnt say anything about individualism.
 
you're statement obviously does not apply to me,
Actually it does. Your individual choice to not buy a car has nothing to do with the fact that you'd still have to exchange more of your labour to get one than to get your slice of provolone.

You can't go to a car retailer and say.

IWWorkER: "I don't value a care all that much in my life and I value my money more than that. Maybe I'll spare $2 just for the experience. That's how much I subjectively value a car."

and the retailer will go

"Alright buddy, since value is totally subjective, we will give the car to you for how much you subjectively value it. Give us the Jefferson bill and take it"

Remember that when we speak of value in LTV we are specifically talking about the Exchange Value that was described in previous thread. One may not personally value something, but when living in a society one is also not immune from the social value of that thing.

And who is to say that social value does not inform individual value. Does the choice to not buy a car REALLY make a car a less valuable thing than a cheese packet in your head? If you happened upon a Ford Fiesta tomorrow would you give it to me if I offered you a packet of Kraft in return. Are you really that person?

I know I am not. I buy eggs everyday with my money and will never use that money to buy a Kobelco Crane. But I KNOW that the Crane is indeed more valuable than my fucking omlette. (Of course in the matter of exchange value, it doesn't matter what either of us think.)

You say that you didn't make a point about individualism but your example here is deeply rooted in individualism. I know that a Kobelco Crane is something to be valued even though I won't individually spend my money on it, because I know that it performs a function in society that I am living in. And that function does in some way effect my own life. That's why so many labourers were made to spend so many man hours to make that Crane.

And even someone, whose eyes haven't been opened to these social facts, will still find the Crane more valuable owing to how freaking expensive it is.

IMG 20260115 205335



IMG 20260115 205431
 
Last edited:
Your individual choice to not buy a car has nothing to do with the fact that you'd still have to exchange more of your labour to get one than to get your slice of provolone.
Thats only because no one sells car for less than cheese, but if someone chose to do so, then what ? Are you gonna arrest him ?
You can't go to a car retailer and say.

IWWorkER: "I don't value a care all that much in my life and I value my money more than that. Maybe I'll spare $2 just for the experience. That's how much I subjectively value a car."
I can though.
and the retailer will go

"Alright buddy, since value is totally subjective, we will give the car to you for how much you subjectively value it. Give us the Jefferson bill and take it"
He can say that if he wants to or he can tell me to fuck off. He has the choice because he owns the car.
Also, this situation happens all the time you know ? Have you never heard of bargaining ? People argue about value all the time.
And who is to say that social value does not inform individual value. Does the choice to not buy a car REALLY make a car a less valuable thing than a cheese packet in your head?
Obviously, if I valued the car I would buy it, but I don't.
If you happened upon a Ford Fiesta tomorrow would you give it to me if I offered you a packet of Kraft in return.
No I would try to sell it because I know that, even if I don't, other people value that car.
Why would I not try to make a profit ?
You say that you didn't make a point about individualism but your example here is deeply rooted in individualism. I know that a Kobelco Crane is something to be valued even though I won't individually spend my money on it, because I know that it performs a function in society that I am living in. And that function does in some way effect my own life. That's why so many labourers were made to spend so many man hours to make that Crane.
Sneed.
 
He can say that if he wants to or he can tell me to fuck off.
This is besides the point but like the hyper individualistic "it's all muh individual choice" language here. Capitalism really has brain raped all of us. As if the dealer is not here to do a job which explicitly requires him to reject $2 offers. Material reality be damned, economic facts be damned. The world is just a bunch of individuals making individual choices.

"Oh he can accept the $2 offer for his car umm but then his business would go down, so it's all about making good iNdIvIdUaL cHoIcES in muh fReE mArKeT". This is how we end up in a world where people believe that billionares are "self made"

I mean I get why one would have such a worldview, because we do live in a Capitalist system that imposes Alienation on everyone. Even the "bargaining" you speak of is limited by the material factors of production.

Thats only because no one sells car for less than cheese, but if someone chose to do so, then what ? Are you gonna arrest him ?
As I said, individualism that ignores the real world. Of course such a car dealer will go out of business within a day. So let's come back from the fantasy world of "individual choices" where people can theoritically "choose" to set their life savings on fire like Joker in The Dark Knight, to the real world where profits, wages and savings are the norm in a functioning society. Where value exists, is socially determined and is contingent on labour time.

No I would try to sell it because I know that, even if I don't, other people value that car.
Yeah that's the whole point. Your behaviour towards that car changes because it has EXCHANGE value that can be EXCHANGED for something of EQUIVALENT VALUE that you can use.

You won't exchange it for a SINGLE cheese packet but you WILL exchange it for money that is worth a THOUSAND cheese packets. Even your subconscious mind KNOWS, while making this trade , that the car is more VALUABLE than a single cheese packet because you can get 1000 in exchange for it.

If that's not VALUE then I don't know what is. Sure, you don't want to call it value because the car has no USE VALUE to you. Fine. These are words anyway.

Further there's another coincidence. A single cheese packet takes LESS labour to make than a 1000 cheese packets. I know , surprising news. What does that say about the car, that too took a lot of human effort to make but that you refused to sell off for one cheese packet because someone else was giving you a 1000. I guess you know where I'm going with this.
 
No I dont know.
Well, for the benefit of any one reading this...

We just witnessed how the value of car at the point of exchange is far more than a single packet of cheese.

1. If the Car indeed was equal to or less valuable than cheese then the trade would have happened. But it didn't.

2. The fact that the Car could be exchanged for a 1000 cheese packets gives a more accurate measure of how valuable that thing is.

3. A car takes far more human effort to make than a single cheese packet. But with 1000 cheese packets take 1000 times more labour to make than a single one.

This shows that Value, at the point of exchange, indeed comes from Labour. The more Labour goes into making something the more valuable it is during an exchange.
 
If the Car indeed was equal to or less valuable than cheese then the trade would have happened. But it didn't
Replace "cheese" with "x dollars" (whatever is the price of the car)
Dont you see the problem ?
Some would buy it, others would not.
How is this not subjective ?
 
This shows that Value, at the point of exchange, indeed comes from Labour.
How does this happen then ?
Screenshot 20260115 180917 Brave

Did the labor required to mine silver suddenly tripled for no reason ?
 
Last edited:
Replace "cheese" with "x dollars" (whatever is the price of the car)
Dont you see the problem ?
Some would buy it, others would not.
How is this not subjective ?
If X= $5 , say the price of a cheese packet. Then no one would sell that car. The exchange wouldn't happen. This is not subjective at all.

Let's not pretend that selling off your car of $5 is an individual subjective choice that exists in the real world
 
If X= $5 , say the price of a cheese packet. Then no one would sell that car. This is not subjective at all.
You take a extreme example to prove your point, this is dishonest.
If the price for a certain used car was 1000$, some people would buy it, others would not, but would buy it if it were 950$.
And the same type of car can be sold at different prices by different people in different places.
What is the real price of this car, and how was that price determined by labor ?
 
You take a extreme example to prove your point, this is dishonest.
I only take extreme examples to make the point hit home. To say that a Boeing 747 is more valuable than a plastic chair (irrespective of individual preferences for either) sounds like basic common sense.

If the price for a certain used car was 1000$, some people would buy it, others would not, but would buy it if it were 950$.
And the same type of car can be sold at different prices by different people in different places.
You are talking about price fluctuations here and that is a whole topic in and of itself. But let me tell you that even these price fluctuations are not as arbitrarily subjective as you seem to imply. Every decision is influenced by external factors. I mean, if I don't have $1000 to pay for a car that is fairly priced at $1000 , but if I can only pay 500 , that doesn't mean I "subjectively" value the car at 500. Even though the market is clearly telling me otherwise. And if I do have the money but decide I do that need that car, well too bad but that wouldn't stop it from being worth a $1000.

and how was that price determined by labor ?
By all the instances of labour that went into making that car quantified in terms of wages.

Let's simplify. How is the price really determined? It takes a certain amount of investment to make the car. The Cost Price. And that must be recovered with a little extra otherwise what's the point. (All bargaining and price fluctuations aside)

This may include the wages of labour that went into making the car in the car factory. The cost of setting up the factory. Cost of tools and plants. Cost of machines etc. For a simple commodity, all these things determine the final cost to the business. And under normal conditions the market price should exceed that.

But focus on the non-living costs here. The machine, the tools and plants, the factory building don't keep the money, that you paid to buy them, in their own pockets. That money goes to other humans because only humans can own money. So who is getting that? It goes into the wages of the workers who made the machine. Wages of the workers who manufactured the hammer. Wages of the construction guys who set up the building. Wages of the people who mined the natural minerals and metal for all of this.

The point is, every dollar and penny contained within your commody's market price is distributed into this vast network of human work that makes it's existence possible. So in your own business, locally, you can talk about human cost (wages) and non-living costs but globally it's ALL human cost. It's ALL wages. Machines and tools don't own and spend money, people do.

You see, it's all Labour in the end. There is only a limited number of working age people on the planet and time itself is limited. Anything that takes a bigger quanta from this combined planetary labour force to make will proportionally become more valuable in the market.
 
Last edited:
I only take extreme examples to make the point hit home. To say that a Boeing 747 is more valuable than a plastic chair (irrespective of individual preferences for either) sounds like basic common sense.


You are talking about price fluctuations here and that is a whole topic in and of itself. But let me tell you that even these price fluctuations are not as arbitrarily subjective as you seem to imply. Every decision is influenced by external factors. I mean, if I don't have $1000 to pay for a car that is fairly priced at $1000 , but if I can only pay 500 , that doesn't mean I "subjectively" value the car at 500. Even though the market is clearly telling me otherwise. And if I do have the money but decide I do that need that car, well too bad but that wouldn't stop it from being worth a $1000.


By all the instances of labour that went into making that car quantified in terms of wages.

Let's simplify. How is the price really determined? It takes a certain amount of investment to make the car. The Cost Price. And that must be recovered with a little extra otherwise what's the point. (All bargaining and price fluctuations aside)

This may include the wages of labour that went into making the car in the car factory. The cost of setting up the factory. Cost of tools and plants. Cost of machines etc. For a simple commodity, all these things determine the final cost to the business. And under normal conditions the market price should exceed that.

But focus on the non-living costs here. The machine, the tools and plants, the factory building don't keep the money, that you paid to buy them, in their own pockets. That money goes to other humans because only humans can own money. So who is getting that? It goes into the wages of the workers who made the machine. Wages of the workers who manufactured the hammer. Wages of the construction guys who set up the building. Wages of the people who mined the natural minerals and metal for all of this.

The point is, every dollar and penny contained within your commody's market price is distributed into this vast network of human work that makes it's existence possible. So in your own business, locally, you can talk about human cost (wages) and non-living costs but globally it's ALL human cost. It's ALL wages. Machines and tools don't own and spend money, people do.

You see, it's all Labour in the end. There is only a limited number of working age people on the planet and time itself is limited. Anything that takes a bigger quanta from this combined labour planetary labour force to make will proportionally become more valuable in the market.
Yeah every manufactured object costs trillions of trillions of trillions of dollars.
 
Did the labor required to mine silver suddenly tripled for no reason ?

No, labour didn't change. There is a difference between value and price.

Value is determined by socially necessary labour-time.
Price is value expressed in money.

Thinking “price up = labour up” is Ricardian, not Marxian.
 
Yeah every manufactured object costs trillions of trillions of trillions of dollars.
Of course your commodity is not the only commodity that is paying the background wages. You are saying this as if like you are the only one selling anything on the market and all that 8 billion strong human labour went into a single commodity alone :feelskek:

Think of it like how when you sell a log of wood on the market you factor in the costs of maintaining your chainsaw with oil which get's factored into your price. Let's say your chainsaw works 1 month after each maintainece cycle and you spend $10 of oil every time. And in that period you sold off $600 worth of wood. Now that $10 cost was recovered in that 600$ sale.

You can imagine that from that $10, 2 cents went into the wages of a single guy working in the oil field for that month that made your oil possible. 1 cent went to the cashier who worked in the retail store you got it from. Of course the company is selling way more than $10 oil a month so the oil refinery worker is getting way more than 2 cents. Same goes for cashier whose store is processing 100s of sales everyday. But you get that point.

Every single penny of that $600 sale is going into another human's pocket (including yours). Literally all of it is labour. If the amount of labour were higher at any step, things would cost you more and the final wood will become costlier than 600.
 
Last edited:
No, labour didn't change. There is a difference between value and price.

Value is determined by socially necessary labour-time.
Price is value expressed in money.

Thinking “price up = labour up” is Ricardian, not Marxian.
Sounds like you cant actually quantify value so you're coping hard.
 
You are saying this as if like you are the only one selling anything on the market and all that 8 billion strong human labour went into a single commodity alone :feelskek:
Thats what you said though.
Literally all of it is labour
Idk what to tell you then.
Idk whats the point of labor theory of value.

Also can you answer that:
How does this happen then ?
View attachment 1647385
Did the labor required to mine silver suddenly tripled for no reason ?
 
Sounds like you cant actually quantify value so you're coping hard.

You see value as an empirical measure, but that misses Marx's point. He was trying to move beyond empirical economics and was analysing the categories of capitalism. Labour creates value, and under capitalism that value is always expressed in money. That doesn’t make it unquantifiable because its observable form is monetary.
 
Can you prove that ?

First, we have to see value as social, not individual. Commodities only get value through human labour, measured by socially necessary labour-time. A field of trees isn’t valuable on its own. Its price just reflects the potential for labour to turn it into something people can use or exchange. Some might say the trees are valuable because of desire or because of scarcity, but individual preferences and market forces can change prices without creating value. Only when labour is applied does a commodity gain use-value and become exchangeable. Money just expresses the value produced by labour and does not create it. Without labour as the source of value, commodities wouldn’t exist.
 
you guys are reatarded communists comunism is a jewish ideology created for jews to kill white poeple go suck Israel's dick.
 
First, we have to see value as social, not individual. Commodities only get value through human labour, measured by socially necessary labour-time. A field of trees isn’t valuable on its own. Its price just reflects the potential for labour to turn it into something people can use or exchange. Some might say the trees are valuable because of desire or because of scarcity, but individual preferences and market forces can change prices without creating value. Only when labour is applied does a commodity gain use-value and become exchangeable. Money just expresses the value produced by labour and does not create it. Without labour as the source of value, commodities wouldn’t exist.
Yeah so you just change the definition of value to fit your point ok I didn't understand that.
What I dont understand though is, what's the point ? What does "value" even mean to you then ? What is it used for ?
And also, its still vague. Digging a huge hole then refilling it is lots of labor but is it valuable ?
I know you "answered" by saying
something people can use or exchange
but once again that's subjective. I have no use for a PS5. I dont want it or care about it. Does it has no value then ?
And your own example of a field of tree, I have more use in a field of tree than in a PS5, yet according to your theory the trees have no value but the PS5 does.
That makes no sense

Finally,
measured by socially necessary labour-time
Is all labor equally valuable ?
 
you guys are reatarded communists comunism is a jewish ideology created for jews to kill white poeple go suck Israel's dick.
He will tell you he doesnt hate white people but we deserve to be exterminated or whatever.
 
He will tell you he doesnt hate white people but we deserve to be exterminated or whatever.
lol both capitalism and communism is controlled by jews.
 
And there are 9 million Jews in the USA, that's surely enough to run something (which they just so happen to be doing)
One is up and front and an accepted, acknowledged part of reality that one can experience and see daily. Other is a tin foil conspiracy about a secret collusion, held together by nothing but pamphlets with 10-20 jews having a star drawn on their forehead.
 
One is up and front and an accepted, acknowledged part of reality that one can experience and see daily. Other is a tin foil conspiracy about a secret collusion, held together by nothing but pamphlets with 10-20 jews having a star drawn on their forehead.
Oh yeah I guess when the Jewish world Congress gets together and says they control the media and will ban antisemites, they are just being crazy nazi conspiracy theorists
 
Idk whats the point of labor theory of value.
I'm building upto the point but it's nothing that you don't already know.

you guys are reatarded communists comunism is a jewish ideology created for jews to kill white poeple go suck Israel's dick.
It's easy to tell Americans apart when they bring up race into everything.
 
Gay Jewish theory
 
Yeah so you just change the definition of value to fit your point ok I didn't understand that.
What I dont understand though is, what's the point ? What does "value" even mean to you then ? What is it used for ?

As Marx writes, "We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production." I think the problem is you’re not really getting socially necessary labour-time. It means average amount of labour society needs, under normal conditions, to produce something that can be exchanged (a commodity). It’s not about how hard any one person works. For example, if a company invents a faster way to produce something, they might make more profit at first. But other companies will eventually adopt the same method, and the socially necessary labour-time decreases, lowering the value of that commodity.

And also, its still vague. Digging a huge hole then refilling it is lots of labor but is it valuable ?
Is all labor equally valuable ?

Digging a huge hole just to fill it back up is wasted labour. No social use-value is produced that people will exchange for, so it doesn't count as value, no matter how much labour was put in. As Marx puts it, "If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value."

I have no use for a PS5. I dont want it or care about it. Does it has no value then ?

Again, use-value is meant in the social sense. You and I may have no individual want or use for a PS5, but that doesn't mean there's no intrinsic value. Its use-value comes from its capacity to satisfy human needs in society, such as playing games. The value of the PS5 comes from the socially necessary labour required to produce it and the fact that it can be exchanged as a commodity.

How does this happen then ?
View attachment 1647385
Did the labor required to mine silver suddenly tripled for no reason ?

Marx's theory is a monetary labour theory of value. Value is measured and expressed in money. The difference between the Marxian school and Austrian school is that it doesn't rely on metaphysical ideas such as subjective preferences or marginal utility. Prices do change, yeah. In your example, the price of silver has tripled, but that only reflects market forces like supply and demand, and speculation, not the value created by labour. Value exists independently of price.

Idk whats the point of labor theory of value.

I think @Caesercel will explain this further in the next thread in this series.
 
It means average amount of labour society needs, under normal conditions, to produce something that can be exchanged (a commodity)
What does that mean ?
By what metric do you measure an "amount" of labor ? Watt-hour? Joule? Hour?
Also, what are "normal" conditions ?
"If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value."
Yeah that's what I'm saying, but usefulness is subjective. I have no use for videogames to stay on OP's example.
Its use-value comes from its capacity to satisfy human needs in society, such as playing games
Yeah and walking in the forest satisfy my needs more than any videogames, so its more valuable, yet no labor was used to create it, as we did not create it.
Can't you see the problem ?
Value is measured and expressed in money
Value exists independently of price.
128 14

The difference between the Marxian school and Austrian school is that it doesn't rely on metaphysical ideas such as subjective preferences or marginal utility.
How are subjective preferences more metaphysical than your claim of an objective value ?
 
Lol just calm down and read it like a science article without any baggage. See if you agree with the conclusions

Marx was around 1/4 Jewish (ethnically). His father converted to Lutheranism so Marx was raised Christian. He never practiced Judaism and he was antisemitic (probably without even realising his own Jewish ancestry).
Not that him being a practicing jew would matter because "jew" does not automatically mean "evil". But from your thread it sounds like both him and Bauer were anti-Semitic.
 
But from your thread it sounds like both him and Bauer were anti-Semitic.

I wasn't saying being Jewish was inherently anything. Although, Marx did make some antisemitic and racist (at least by today's standards) comments in private, albeit unrelated to his political theory.
 
By what metric do you measure an "amount" of labor ? Watt-hour? Joule? Hour?
Also, what are "normal" conditions ?

The actual unit of measurement doesn't matter. The amount of labour is measured in time and averaged across society as socially necessary labour. For example, suppose three companies make the same chair. Company A takes 4 hours. Company B takes 5 hours. Company C takes 6 hours. The social average is therefore 5 hours. That 5 hours is the socially necessary labour-time that determines the value of the chair, not the fastest or slowest individual producer. Now, what are normal conditions? Marx defines this in Capital Vol. 1 as "labour-time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time." It does not mean ideal conditions, just the social average.

usefulness is subjective. I have no use for videogames to stay on OP's example.

Marx is not talking about personal preferences. Use-value is social. A PS5 has use-value because it is produced with labour to satisfy needs that exist socially, not because everyone wants one. Your lack of perceived usefulness does not negate its use-value or its value. This is why Marx separates use-value, exchange-value, value, and price.

walking in the forest satisfy my needs more than any videogames, so its more valuable, yet no labor was used to create it

Walking in the forest may satisfy your needs more than playing video games, but that does not make it more valuable. Something can be very useful and still have no value at all. According to Marx, "A thing can be a use-value, without having value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not due to labour. Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows, &c." Hence, we can infer that mere utility does not create value unless the thing has been produced through labour that is socially necessary.

How are subjective preferences more metaphysical than your claim of an objective value ?

Subjective preferences are metaphysical in the sense that they cannot be measured and differ from person to person. Marx’s concept of value is socially objective because it is based on socially necessary labour time, which is observable and can be compared across society. Social usefulness is not metaphysical because it is not a matter of what any individual happens to like but of whether a thing serves a social need. For example, a chair is socially useful because it serves the need for sitting, not because someone likes it. This is not an ontological claim. Value as we know it only exists in capitalist social relations and remains so long as commodities are produced for exchange.
 
The actual unit of measurement doesn't matter. The amount of labour is measured in time and averaged across society as socially necessary labour. For example, suppose three companies make the same chair. Company A takes 4 hours. Company B takes 5 hours. Company C takes 6 hours. The social average is therefore 5 hours. That 5 hours is the socially necessary labour-time that determines the value of the chair, not the fastest or slowest individual producer. Now, what are normal conditions? Marx defines this in Capital Vol. 1 as "labour-time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time." It does not mean ideal conditions, just the social average.



Marx is not talking about personal preferences. Use-value is social. A PS5 has use-value because it is produced with labour to satisfy needs that exist socially, not because everyone wants one. Your lack of perceived usefulness does not negate its use-value or its value. This is why Marx separates use-value, exchange-value, value, and price.



Walking in the forest may satisfy your needs more than playing video games, but that does not make it more valuable. Something can be very useful and still have no value at all. According to Marx, "A thing can be a use-value, without having value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not due to labour. Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows, &c." Hence, we can infer that mere utility does not create value unless the thing has been produced through labour that is socially necessary.



Subjective preferences are metaphysical in the sense that they cannot be measured and differ from person to person. Marx’s concept of value is socially objective because it is based on socially necessary labour time, which is observable and can be compared across society. Social usefulness is not metaphysical because it is not a matter of what any individual happens to like but of whether a thing serves a social need. For example, a chair is socially useful because it serves the need for sitting, not because someone likes it. This is not an ontological claim. Value as we know it only exists in capitalist social relations and remains so long as commodities are produced for exchange.
You answered none of the questions.
You are coping hard.
 
I wasn't saying being Jewish was inherently anything. Although, Marx did make some antisemitic and racist (at least by today's standards) comments in private, albeit unrelated to his political theory.
I was not talking about his slurs though. Now, I have not read Jewish Question so maybe I'm wrong , but from your thread it sounds like both him and Bauer bought into the anti-Semitic stereotyping that jews are finance usurers and that has something to do with hate thrown their way
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top