Abolish the value form of commodities. Do it. Now

Abolish the value form of commodities. Do it. Now.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=hSP-crYjeoE
users.wfu.edu/cottrell/eea97.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=HQGVh4BpZVQ
investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

already did 5 years ago and i feel more free than ever

I shouldn't. It's not the capitalist way.

Value is subjective.

Use value is subjective. Its how useful something is. Exchange value is not and is determined by the average amount of labor time that goes into a freely reproducable commodity. A commodity has to forms the bodily form/physical form which is uncomparable to other commoditys but also the value form. The value form is a commodity as a mere congelation of undifferentiated human labor. Abolish the value form of commodities. Do it now.

>is determined by the average amount of labor time that goes into a freely reproducable commodity
How much labor is worth, and how much time is worth, is subjective.

How would subjective value theory explain this:
Acme TVs makes 100 TV and 100 customers want TVs. Supply and demand are at complete equilibrium. The price of 1 TV is 75$. Supply and demand can't explain this. Only a theory of value can.

Also you seem to be misunderstanding me. labor and value are the same thing.

What about experience?

>Supply and demand can't explain this
It takes resources to make TVs, the factories that make TVs, the mining equipment that extracts the ores that go into TVs, the refineries and smelters that turn that ore into useful metal and alloys, and the transportation and workers that make the whole process work.

All sorts of skilled labor can be reduced into large quantitys of unskilled labor. The person had to put in labor to become skilled so they can now produce value faster than unskilled workers.

How is the price set when supply and demand are at equalibrium?

Uh sorry sweetie... but I like my paycheck ;).

The price is set to what people are willing to pay.

have a labor voucher

Supply and demand are at equalibrium. They can't explain price.

>Make a pencil with a pencil making machine
>Pencil 2 is the exact same as pencil 1 but I do everything by hand by driving to a forest, cutting down trees, mining graphite, etc.
> Somehow pencil 2 has more value than pencil 1 because I was a retard not making it in the most efficient way
Wtf is this Commie magic?

>Supply and demand are at equalibrium. They can't explain price.
Sure they can. They've set the price at the point where 100 people will want 100 TVs. If the lower the price, then more than 100 people will want their 100 TVs because of the better deal they are getting. If they raise the price, then less than 100 people will want those 100 TVs because of the worse deal they are getting.

>tfw meme I created still lives
Feels good man

Wrong. If you work below the average amount of labor time that the average laborer does then you produce the same value in more time. If you make a pencil its worth the amount of labor time it takes on average to create one. Not the labor you did to create it.
youtube.com/watch?v=hSP-crYjeoE

But why is the price where it is if supply at demand are at equalibrium?

Supply and demand are at equilibrium because the the price is where it is.

Why don't the people who want TV's make their own? I don't understand, why get a second party involved at all?

>worker exploitation is bad
>knocks up maid and kicks her out when she wants help raising child

Abolish your existence.

Thats a good argument. I do agree that supply and demand and price affect each other. But I do still think that labor creates value based on the correlation between labor time and market price. users.wfu.edu/cottrell/eea97.pdf

>and is determined by the average amount of labor time

Nobody can calculate that average amount of time, and how much it is worth.

Objective valuing feels right, but in the real world you are forced to use subjective values.

So you encourage people work less efficiently. Lets say Christopher is an excellent pencil maker and lowers the averages time it takes to make a pencil from 15 minutes to 10 minutes. His comrades realize that that dickhead Christopher is causing them to get paid less so they decide to bully him and peer pressure him until he slows down his pencil making. Then this group of geniuses realizes "Hey, if we can all agree to make pencils more slowly we can get paid the same for less work!" Now the average time it takes to make a pencil is 20 minutes wasting even more resources then before.

who else /utopia/ here?

Fucking how? Assigning relative values to goods and services is a direct result of evolutionary biology. Unless you develop a method of genetically altering the entire human race your ideology will continue to be pure fantasy

>tfw you read the first few chapters of Capital vol. 1 and you think you're a genius

I am speaking of something that allready exists in capitalism. Firms are punished by the market when they produce lower that the SNLT and rewarded with super profits when they use automation to produce below it. You seem to think I am proposing a communist system but I'm just describing capitalism. The LTV doesn't apply in communism or fuedalism anyway.

In fuedalism exchange value did not exist in the same scale as it does now. Most people produced for their own use and looked a commoditys not a values or congelations of human labor but as useful goods that could fulfil a want or a need. In capitalism firms and workers produce for exchange. The baker makes bread not because he needs bread but because he can sell the bread on the market. In socialism value is abolished a goods are produced because people need them not because profit can be made from exchange.

Except the LTV doesn't hold in capitalist societies ever since at least the marginal revolution. Labour is an aspect of supply, true, but it isn't what determines value since there is a second side to the exchange, aka the consumer. The consumer couldn't care less how much labor goes into making a product and only cares about price relative to quality.

And why would people produce those goods in the first place? I, for one, would just sit on my ass and play video games and fuck my gf all day until I got bored and decided to do something else. Never would it occur to me to go "You know what? I should go be a janitor or go into the sewage industry!"

Supply and demand aren't independent. If more jelly beans are demanded then the suppy of jelly beans goes up bringing the price back down to the true labor value of the commodity. plus demand doesn't exist in a vacume. Check out this video: youtube.com/watch?v=HQGVh4BpZVQ

Well in the lower phase of communism because you need to give to society in order to get goods from society.

Oh and I forgot to mention one thing. If you try to compare the value of two commodities (ie 20 yards of coton fabric = one coat) you find that as physical objects they are uncomparable. You make things with fabric and you wear coats. In order for this comparison of value to make sense you need to have something in common with both commoditys. That thing is the amount of labor that goes into a commodity.

If demand for jelly beans goes up you move along the supply curve increasing the price but it doesn't cause a shift in the supply curve unless the factors of production have changed. This is the first thing you learn in high school economics: investopedia.com/university/economics/economics3.asp

The market respond by making more jelly beans to meet demand. Society has told producers to invest more labor here and less here.

That's a false premise but nice try. Value is subjective and when two people exchange 20 yards of cotton for one coat the person giving the coat gains more utility from having one coat than having 20 extra yards of cotton and vice versa for the other person.

You're still not understanding a movement along versus a shift of the supply curve.

Value is subjective but the way the market values certain commoditys is through a comparison of abstract human labor.
users.wfu.edu/cottrell/eea97.pdf

A brick formed by hand is therefore more valuable than one formed in an automated process, despite the utility of both being equal.

The idea of basing value on labor completely extinguishes innovation by efficiency. In fact, it's an absolute denial of the idea of efficiency. Operating a market by this method would reward whoever takes the longest to make an equivalent product, because they put the most labor time into the product, rather than rewarding the quality of goods themselves.

Might as well say that incentives don't actually drive behavior, so I'd love to see you train a dog; it should appreciate that hand made treat more than the equivalent mass produced one, right?

>A brick formed by hand is therefore more valuable than one formed in an automated process, despite the utility of both being equal.

Why? They both tooks the same socially nessary labor time to create.

the commie faggot understands BOWEL movements as his mouth keeps having one

If you a maker of jelly means and their is a surge in jelly beans you will take advantage of that rise in demand a make more. Other candy companys will also go into the jelly bean business. Demand rose so supply also rose to meet it. Once the demand is fufilled and jelly beans are no longer scarce the price of jelly beans falls down.

More labor went into the handmade brick rather than the automated brick, which would fall under the needed R&D to produce the machine and labor hours to build an maintain the machine. Pieces/hour for an automated process will increase, so even if the same number of employees were staffed for a process, each individual brick required less labor, especially as time goes on (machine burden, if you want accounting perspective).

Look, I'm an industrial engineer, and am really trying to figure out how exactly my brick production works in this sort of mindset.

Well to be desu I don't see why anyone would ever read past the first few chapters anyway, it's pure shit.

Value is determined by socially nessary labor time. If everyone is making 1 brick per minute and you go dig up some clay and build a furnace and make your own brick in 4 hours you have only actually made 1 minute worth of socially nessary labor time. The bricks have the same value even when you spend more time making one. However lets say all the brick making mashines in the world break down and everyone now has to make bricks by hand. Bricks become more scarce the price rises and the value of bricks rises as well. If we completely subtract labor from production a commodity has no value what so ever. Air is very useful but requires no labor to create and thus has no exchange value.

It doesn't necessarily need to fall down to its previous price, though, depending on the new marginal cost curve caused by the new factors of production as well as whether the demand and supply curves are straight lines (which they generally aren't).

of course it may not fall to its previous price but the price will fall when the product becomes less scarce.

OK. So you agree that labour is not the only driving force in value? It's an element but is not the sole reason things have value.

Well I agree that labor is not the only driving force in value. Nature plays a role as well. But I don't see how supply and demand fluctuation disproves the LTV. Price and value aren't the same thing.

You mean "necessary," right? I can understand one typo, but I get the feeling you are using "nessary" on purpose.

Additionally, just titling the utility of a product as "socially nessary labor time" does not make it so, as evidenced by the fact you described the value as being entirely predicated on its product utility and scarcity. So whether it took one or three men to make it, the "socially nessary labor time" has not changed, so labor is clearly not tied into the example. If the factor (labor) does not affect output (value) then they are not correlated and we're back to product utility and rarity being the controlling factors in this equation.

Yeah I meant necessary. I'm not sure I undestand your argument. Do you think I am describing value as related to scarcity and utility?

Ok. Let's say you're in a desert and you're dying of thirst. Clearly water has an incredible amount of value to you and you'd give all of your money to somebody who could provide you with it while a luxury good, like a PlayStation has very little value. One provides you the utility of living while the other of playing. Clearly the utility of living is far more important than playing in this situation and given the choice you would choose 1 liter of water over 1 PlayStation.

Now let's say you're back at home. No way in hell would you value the same amount of water that you did when you were in the desert. And given the choice between one PlayStation and one liter of water you would take the PlayStation.

Marginal Value is what matters here. Going form zero to one liter of water is far more valuable than going from zero Playstations to one Playstation. Meanwhile, going from 70 to 71 liters of water has far less value to you than going from zero to one Playstations.

Somehow, they both have more value to you depending on the situation independent of labour

In the desert you are concerned with use value. You know you need the water. The LTV isn't about your subjective preferences its about the exchange value of a commodity in a market. Everyone needs water yet it takes little to no labor to get so on a market its worth nearly nothing. Even adam smith came to the same conclusion about the water diamond paradox.

Well that's how it reads to me. Take for instance

>The bricks have the same value even when you spend more time making one.
>Bricks become more scarce the price rises and the value of bricks rises as well.

These two statements establish (1) that value does not change when different labor time is applied to a product, and (2) scarcity does in fact change the value.

Taken in context of the prior two statements

>If we completely subtract labor from production a commodity has no value what so ever

Does not make sense. If it is a 3 person production process for a brick, or a 2 person production for a brick, the first statement establishes that the price will not change. If it's 1 person, then it shouldn't either. Now if we get to a fully automated process (which does not actually exist, considering someone built the machine), then why does labor suddenly only matter when we approach a hypothetical zero labor hour?

So since we have scarcity, and I'm working under the axiom that people buy things because they are valuable (because who would trade/purchase/take/transact for something to which they get no value), there is still no correlation between labor and value [see statement 1].

"Supply" also includes cost of production you dumb fuck. Those TVs didn't appear from nowhere, they were made from resources (including the labor used to make them, labor is a resource).
Supply and demand are never in equilibrium because markets aren't closed completely ordered systems, there are too many variables that alter both the supply of a product or a service (aka availability of said service).
You would know this if you weren't a retarded commie.
The prices are set based on how much did it cost to produce the TV based on the supply of its materials and labor and how much can you charge from that is based on the demand of said TVs

The bricks value is determined by the average amount of labor it takes to make one.
The value rose because scarcity corresponds with more labor being needed to produce something. If you have a food shortage more labor is required to create food.

if no labor was required to create a commodity (Say diamonds could be thought into existance by anyone) then the value of a diamond falls below that of a brick.

Because the fact that it takes no effort to make them mind diamonds makes the SUPPLY of diamonds skyrocket.

Sure.

I have to go now. I might come back later to talk about the LTV some more.

It takes a lot of labor and time to repeatedly push a rock up a hill only to have it roll back down again. This is not valuable labor.

Going to have to disagree with that as well. The cost to produce is determined by the labor, but not it's value. I'll use an example from an old job, meat manufacturing industrial engineer position.

A product line for a 1 lb pack requires 6 people on the line (cutting, weighing/sorting, packaging, inspecting, boxing and palletizing), that's labor hours. Take the labor hours of a shift of all employees and output (8x6=48hrs; 48/(# of packages)=48/5760=0.00833 labor hrs/pkg at an hourly rate of $16/hr) gives $0.133 per product.

Machine burden works the same way over the usable life of the machine (20.6 million approximately, line machine cost being approx. $3 million) gives $0.146/pkg, total then being $0.279/pkg for line cost. I could factor in materials, management and marketing overhead, but you get the idea.

All of that merely gives a cost to production. It does not by any means affect the market's value, which has actually resulted in losses where product availability was beneficial to a consumer/buyer perspective and they were willing to buy at the shelf price, normally set at 3-4% over the total of labor, overhead, machine, building, and sales costs.

That 3% is what we can get away with because that's (most times) a reasonable enough price to a buyer. The person who is going through a transaction does not have any knowledge of our cost structure and thus won't be affected by our cost to produce.

stop people from wanting and needing things and make sure you can control them well enough

I fail to see the distinction between use value and exchange value. Surely I exchange something for its uses.

Exchange is what you can get on the market. You want gold mainly because you can exchange it for useful things. Use value is how useful something is. Its subjective. Exchange value is the proportion of which commoditys exchange with each other.

>If you have a food shortage more labor is required to create food.
Spending 10 contiguous hours tending to crops won't produce the same yields as 1 hour per day for 10 contiguous days.

users.wfu.edu/cottrell/eea97.pdf
read this. Labor time and price are correlated.