Please explain labor value theory to me

Please explain labor value theory to me.
How are workers having their surplus labor stolen when it was other workers that created the means of production?

Other urls found in this thread:

lmgtfy.com/?q=factory machines
twitter.com/AnonBabble

means of production spontaneously generate and then evil capitalists steal them with magic and force people to work for them

Well put for a leaf

lets say we have a factory
lets say it employs a thousand people

now lets say it creates wealth of a million whatever
those thousand people who do all the hard work and struggle to live from month to month in crappy conditions will get a few hundred bucks a month while the boss who does nothing will get a crapton of money and live in luxury

it might make sense in context of this civilizational system ,but it is unfair from a basic human level to have a system like that

But the workers did not create the machines someone else did

>means of production spontaneously generate

No, means of production are bought with capital

>then evil capitalists steal them with magic

No, they buy the MOP with capital

> force people to work for them

Correct. People have two choices: to work or die of starvation.

The problem is that the ownership of land and amassment of wealth is generally arbitrary. Someone made the means of production but it wasn't the guy who now owns them.

>But the workers did not create the machines someone else did

That "someone else" is labour.

>not working for yourself
Must be a pleb

Exactly this. Imagine a bridge, the pavement part is the worker. I'm really bad at engineering so I don't know how any of the other parts work, so logically we can just get rid of them.

What if I make my own shovels and then pay people $6 an hour to dig ditches while charging my clients $7?

workers do all the work
therfore they deserve their fair share instead of getting a pitiful piece, while their overlord gets 1000x they do without doing any of the work

>People have two choices: to work or die of starvation.

This is a law of nature. Hydration, nutrition, shelter have to be extracted from nature. If you dont work you die of starvation.

>That "someone else" is labour
Ok but how are the current workers having their labor stolen?

>not working for yourself
>Must be a pleb

Yes, you do have a choice of working for yourself. Albeit much more likely be unfruitful without any prior capital. This does not however invalidate my point.

They did not do all of the work
Somebody else built the machines

By not receiving the full value of their labour.

wrong. the increased productivity of many workers comes from CAPITAL, that was financed by the owner by their own money or risk based loans.

the only time productivity has improved but is in the hands of the worker and not machines has been in HIGHLY SKILLED PROFESSIONS. Who do get paid a lot.

then why dont they build their own factory

But their labor does not include building the machines

yes, the workers have built the machines with their work, just in another factory

owner's capital comes from workers' work

> They did not do all of the work

"All the work" in this scenario means the work necessary to produce the product being sold (not make all the machines necessary to produce the product).

If you want to cry about not getting "fair share" start something on your own. Build a factory, buy equipment and keep looking for deals to keep your factory alive while paying goverment their portion of your income as well as worker healthcare etc(europe)

Because they don't have the necessary capital.

that would just mean becoming one of the 1% who live off other's work

...

But those are different workers
They have nothing to do with the workers there now

you cannot define the full value of their labor in a modern setting without wage negotiations. either person to person which lets and individual mke the case of their own value OR unionism (not government backed cause that fucking demolishes an industry) that fights for the collective group ( below average workers benefit/above average workers lose out )

and they got their fair share taken from them too by those who didnt do any of the work

And after all this work keep your salary same as other labourers who for example connect toy parts

It doesn't, but I think you could better word this bit:
>> force people to work for them
>Correct. People have two choices: to work or die of starvation.

People do indeed have to work or die, that is nature. But offering a job isn't forcing someone to work for you unless it's offered at gunpoint. Picking a shitty option over a worse option (foraging, starvation) is still a choice.

>dont have enough capital to buy a saw and start trimming trees

the machines actually do a lot of the work, the labor just operates them to an extent

this is described well

You are only charging your clients $7? You can fuck right off. You need to be charging at least $12. Remember, you are required to pay taxes, workers compensation insurance, workers health insurance, overhead, maintenance and repairs of the shovels you created, unemployment insurance, and more. Making only $1 to manage all of that is not worth it. You might as well pick up a shovel and make $6.

How do you know?
What if I buy the machines directly from the person that makes them?

One day the workers will join together, build their own machines and reap all the benefits of their own labor
of course, nobody will build machines on the promise of future success, so we'll need someone with money to fund the operation. We also can't expect the everyman to have international business connections, so we'll need one of those high society types - maybe he can provide the start-up cash, too!
Yeah, and once he takes his cut for providing the workers the funds to create the means of production and market the goods, then we'll have perfect communism.

trolling or just stupid?

Those workers were already paid to operate machines that made the parts for the machine, and the source machines were paid for by investors who bore the risk of paying for those machines and thus earn the higher profit.

they're going to have to find some other explanation soon when automation takes over...

on one hand they ought to be happy to have their pleb level universal income but I reckon they'll mostly be pissed that they're not able to find jobs anymore despite previously arguing that such jobs were exploitative

are you implying that machines are made by someone's home workshop

because they are not, they are made in factories that exploit workers

yes, they were paid by the wealth creted by the workers who got almost nothing from tehir share of work

They could be

You can fucking have ownership over the means of production. it's called investing. If you want to own a share of the machines in a compny you work for then buy their fucking shares. Oh wait you don't want to earn a stake, you want to be given one the moment you get assigned to the job by your neighborhood commissar.

no, they fucking couldnt
do you even know what factory machines are?

if you're going to discount that putting capital at risk deserves some reward then why don't all these workers just do that themselves - put their money where their mouth is and form a co-op of some sort to do the same thing?

Could one person make a shovel?

>But offering a job isn't forcing someone to work for you unless it's offered at gunpoint.

Unless you have the necessary capital to start your own venture, you MUST work for someone, and at this point you have two choices: WORK FOR SOMEONE or DIE; and this is no different than being offered to work at gunpoint.


For the vast majority (read: 95%+ of population) it is absolutely WORK FOR SOMEONE or DIE. Please tell me how is this a choice? how is this free will? How is fair?

>muh labor value
this is a lie, the first socialists didn't believe that they created value, but that culture and civilisation had created value and that they should demand a bigger share of the loot because those creators were dead

read the ragged trousered philanthropists

and they were wrong anyway because really it was stolen by imperialists or gained by destroying the competition

This meme is deceiving. That big bag of money is used as investment on equipment, business expenses and hiring more people.

Do you think all of AT&T's money, for example, is owned by one person? It's not. It's held by the corporation as a whole and is used to reinvest in new cell phone towers, excavators, fiber optic research, hiring new scientists to study said fiber optic research.

That's how business works.

You dont have enough capital to buy a computer and do free lance programming?

>if you're going to discount that putting capital at risk deserves some reward
sure is nice to risk the value someone else created

>co-op of some sort to do the same thing
thats exactly the goal

...

You can risk and take a loan to start your venture,nobody is stoping you

lmgtfy.com/?q=factory machines
were talking about where the real value is
not in some cheap buck made by a person shoveling

I think you're also discounting the professional salarymen/engineers here

if a production line is mostly automated then the guy's who have to push buttons or carry out some mundane repetitive task are hardly adding a huge amount of value given they can be easily replaced by any old indian or chink should that factory be relocated

you're claiming that they're being exploited but in reality if they're in a union and in a western country it is likely the other way around and the workers together with their union and labour laws are extracting far more from the employers than they're actually worth - see for example the US car industry

No it's not.

Labor theory of value is an outdated theory that tells hat price of goods for exhange is determined by labor that was spent. you mixes all in one.

marxists told that labor theory of value is outdated and proposed to talk about added value.

marxists and all type of socialists tell that added value is stolled by capitalists and it created crisis. because workers buy goods that they produce with markup (that includes profit of capitalist).

means of productions were created by worker, they became capital assets because they were bought by capitalist.

the only problem is that socialists were lunatics and proposed wrong solutions

you know what's really cucky

demanding wealth for the working class instead of for yourself

even marx only saw the proles as a means to an end

So shovels are not part of the means of production?

>If you want to own a share of the machines in a compny you work for then buy their fucking shares

own a share of the machines in a compny you work for =/= owning the means of productions. Wage labour still exists. Workers don't receive 100% of their labour, exploitation is still there.

This might be the worst false equivalence I've ever seen, not even sure what the train of thought it

there's a reason why communism has never been succesful in the developed west m8
its because what i just described is appliable in less developed areas
in the west there are labour laws and better standards of living so people are satisfied

If working for yourself was easy, everybody would do it. Most 9-5 weekday workers refuse to put in a second more of work that is required to make your own business run. Most people just want to get off at 5 to drink beer and watch football. Capitalism allows people of all walks of life to live in some degree of luxury. Without Capitalism, you aren't watching football and drinking beer after business hours. YOU are doing marketing for your business on your own dime and time. YOU are maintaining and repairing your means of production on your own dime and own time. All of a sudden, you have no time to watch football and drink beer because the second you stop working on your own time and own dime, your competitor is and you're no longer picking up any work.

Working for yourself requires WAY more personal sacrifice than 95% of the working population is willing to make.

Isn't it funny how it's always the communists and socialists who aren't the ones who will actually go out and become self-employed?

If you don't like it, create your own means of production. I have about $3,000 of tools in the back of my $10,000 work ute. These are my means of production that I paid workers to make for me. What entitles you to my shit, just because I paid someone else to make it?

>if a production line is mostly automated then the guy's who have to push buttons or carry out some mundane repetitive task are hardly adding a huge amount of value given they can be easily replaced by any old indian or chink should that factory be relocated
now this still stands
its called the alienation of workers from the means of production

If you know being a tard ass worker without money, why you dont educate yourself and be the boss by yourself?

All in all that is still possible to do in capitalism.

Btw. if you work for companies like BMW etc. you'll get a shitload of money for simple ass work.

that would just mean becoming teh exploiter yourself

So why should worker B be allowed to benefit from the unrewarded work of worker A?
Worker B did not build the machine, nor did he pay for it. How is that fair?

And in a free market the worker says 'fuck this, I'm going to quit and find a job where my skills will be worth more'.

Then they leave that factory and go to work in one of the many competing factories (because it is easy, without over regulation, to set up a factory) where the employer has increased wages and benefits to poach skilled labour from his competitors.

Labour is a commodity. We have to treat it as such. Left to it's own devices employers have to compete for quality labour and standards improve for everybody.

But no... Let's stifle competition, force employers to adhere to a minimum wage pricing millions out of the labour market and see how that works out. Oh, what's that? Ridiculous levels of unemployment, welfare dependency and economic woes.

Worker do small operation. Ten workers do ten different operations - doing that detail, assembling, driving, selling. They can do only their operation. Dude, who owns entire factory, knows how to organize this ten workers. He also owns all material beings on this factory, machines, resources etc. And he hires workers to do this operations. Basically, he offers some payment in exchange for worker doing that operation. Worker agrees to work for that money. So workers are basically sell their labor for monthly amount of money. They never own what they make, cause they was never owning resources and machines they used to make what they make since very beginning. And they don't pay neither for resources, nor for machines.

>Correct. People have two choices: to work or die of starvation.
Under communism they only have the starve option.

Why hasnt anybody shopped a nose in the bag what the fuxk pol you dissapoint me you had one (1) job

if lets say a thousand workers work on something which creates lets say million
in collectivism each would get a thousand
they all work for what they get so its in their benefit to to work properly, not to mention the social pressure

Do you have any idea how much it costs a CEO to employ all those people? Can you please explain why you think YOU deserve the lions share?

>building your own factory is the work of someone else
Someone has never been in a management position.

Who am I exploiting? If paying someone for my tools is exploitation, then what would you call someone simply taking my tools in the name of seizing the means of production?

Is that the MK7 or MK8 version? Can't tell

I think that's only true in some sectors.

My wife and I own a business which happens to have a very shallow profit margin; 53% of the gross income is going towards payroll. I do not get paid and my wife earns less than every staff member.

Capitalism isn't the enemy; greed is.

>And in a free market the worker says 'fuck this, I'm going to quit and find a job where my skills will be worth more'.
>Then they leave that factory and go to work in one of the many competing factories (because it is easy, without over regulation, to set up a factory) where the employer has increased wages and benefits to poach skilled labour from his competitors.

so they find a nicer exploiter
youre advocating to creat a nicer exploitation environment here

Those workers, if they are capable, will be able to leave the factory/whatever and start their own if they want, especially since they've learned the processes.

The problem here is Patents.
Patents exist because people can't keep secrets. If the product is simple enough that any layman can disassemble it and make a copy, then you shouldn't be able to patent is considering it probably didn't take you very much effort to design it in the first place.

But complex technology would be cept safe by high wages. You pay people for loyalty and they will keep your secrets safe, instead of patents.

>give me your redpills /leftypol/
Specifically, the work you do is always worth more than what you are paid, because the capitalist can sell whatever it is you produce for more than you were paid in wages. The productive forces of our society are controlled by a tiny elite instead of by the people, so what ends up happening is that millions of proles sweat their lives away while the porky bastards windsurf in Hawaii.
To put it in terms you might be more familiar with, capitalists are the ultimate welfare queens.
>my stance on hatred of jews and niggers will never change.
To say that your position on any topic will never change is to declare yourself to be beyond reason. That said, those "jews" and "evil niggers" are your natural allies regardless of what you think about them, because they are being exploited just like you are. The leftist position on racism is as much about pragmatism as it is about a commitment to equality.

The basic gist is that capitalism is inherintly broken.
Companies want to make as much money as possible which means paying works the smallest amount possible.
Eventually workers can't afford to buy things, meaning the whole system collapses.
Currently with automation we are going to see a huge loss of jobs that will make the concept of full employment obsolete - so who is going to buy things?
Communism isn't some grand fucking conspiracy about race or western civilization - its just a question of economics.

Way to undervalue the work of the shovel man. Typical capitalist scum.

the work the workers are going to do is going to be exploited through the years
if not it wouldnt be of any good for you to start in teh first place

Because stop being a dumb faggot pleb and make your own god damn means of production, you stupid commie faggot

marxists were not againt exploiters because they are bad. marx wanted to use state capitalism and totalitarian dictatoship as a tool to get to his communism lol

they criticize so-called "capitalistic exploiters" because of crisis of overproduction (by overinvesting to get richer). and they promised that they can solve this problem by replacing them with 1 exploiter temporary

practice showed that their solution in addition to simple business required Mass Murders and Shit

thats why such marxistic bullshit today is close to lunacy

I think that image is inaccurate. That one worker didn't make that amount of wealth for the capitalist. That big fucking bag has to get distributed to the other potentially hundreds of employees. This illustration is an over-exaggeration.

>Those workers, if they are capable, will be able to leave the factory/whatever and start their own if they want, especially since they've learned the processes.
becoming the exploiters themselves


>You pay people for loyalty and they will keep your secrets safe
thinking that money can buy loyalty is naive
there will always be that one individual

This isn't actually an answer, m8

How is trading your labour for a decent wage that allows you to eat, sleep and live in relative comfort make you exploited?

If you want more go out and work for it.

What's really stopping you and your comrades from starting a business together and sharing the profits? What is stopping you, other than incompetence and laziness, from building your own factory and operating it as a cooperative?

If it's so easy to get it all set up you guys shouldn't have any trouble.

People go into business for themselves all the time. But no, you lack the initiative so you want someone else to take the risk, do the work and provide the start up capital so that you can come in and claim you deserve a full share of all the profits.

You're a fucking lunatic.

So people shouldn't have to work? What the fuck are you on about.
Try to be make sense, please. I know it's hard for a socialist to try hard, but come on man.

Anarchist faggot detected. This thread needs to be abandonded.

marx was a petite burgeois upper class autist out of touch with the common man
about communism marx himself has distanced himself from it in practice when he saw waht are "the proletarians" turning it into


of course marxism can never work, its insane

>labor value theory
It was rejected for bein antiscientific in 1890's, anyone who uses it today is just deranged from modern economic science. Economic mainstream is using marginal utility, as it makes sense since all people value things differently.

No why exactly?

A good friend of mine got a start-up company with now 120 employees and they all get the same amount of money. Thats his philosophy and they do a great job since 2 years.

yes they should work
they should work and be the masters of what they produce instead of it going into 1%'s pockets

im not a socialist, im simply a law student who took sociology classes at very good renowned professors where i live

this topic is close to me cause im a distributist

>Totally ignores what was said
>Shoots him after reiterating that the worker filling bags or attaching lugnuts on an assembly deserve the same pay as the guy funding the whole process and keeping the factory and business running at all levels

thats why commies will never be succesful in the west
good conditions of work and good life standards so nobody complains

The problem is a lot of people think the world and other people owe them something just because they exist.
Typical parasite mindset - gib, gib, gib

Ask on /leftypol/ on infinite chan.