Capitalism ironically proves the labor theory of value correct

Prove me wrong faggots. Protip: You can't.

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/ch02.htm#c6
youtube.com/watch?v=UltE6U4t8Vc
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

It doesn't. Marginal utility, bitch.

SAGE

Marxs theory of value??? are you kiding right

The problem with Communism is not its critique of capitalism (its more or less correct there in certain contexts) Its problem is its end goal is unreachable and therefore utopian. Outside of pure economics there's also the jewish/gay degenerate stuff now intwined with it.

Superior system is Fascism Its the third way-opposed to both decadent explotative capitalism and Jewish culture destroying communism. Economically it is centrally planned but provides incentives for competition that benefits society as a whole.

Yeah but plants that are valuable grow on their own in the absence of labor. So explain that.

>It doesn't. Marginal utility, bitch.
How does marginal utility prove labor value of theory wrong faggot? The buyers and sellers both have marginal utility for buying and consuming. The buyers will keep paying till their marginal utility equals the marginal cost of consumption and the sellers will keep jacking up the prices so that their marginal utility keeps increasing. In equilibrium, all buyers will pay the sellers the exact amount it takes to make the product, labor theory of value.

>Marxs theory of value??? are you kiding right
Didn't think you had any counters either you commie cock sucker.

>The problem with Communism
Labor theory of value only faggot. Not that dickwad who keeps posting those commie threads with those Lenin posters.

>Yeah but plants that are valuable grow on their own in the absence of labor.
>No one expends labor in harvesting plants to sell them.
Kys.

Why is it that everything Marx is so esoteric and incomprehensible?

Is the value of the plants is strictly limited to the cost to harvest them?

This guy gets it

Because you're too retarded to understand it

>Why is it that everything Marx is so esoteric and incomprehensible?
Probably because he wasn't a trained economist. Oliver Heaviside, after whom the Heaviside function is named, came up with revolutionary ideas in electrical engineering, converting time to frequency domain. He was at odds with the scientific community for most of his life because his presentation style never sat well with them.

However, he made a famous statement "I do not need to know the process of digestion to eat my food" or something like that, implying his ideas were correct (which they were) and the scientific community were a bunch of snobs (which they were).

when ever i see "protip: you can't", i immediately assume that you've made up your mind and you're just running your dick sucker to hear your own voice.
there's no amount of reason or logic, evidence or history that will make you change your position and you're as awful a human being as you think of those that disagree with you.
ProTip: You're a Fag

>Is the value of the plants is strictly limited to the cost to harvest them?
Is there any other value to plants other than harvesting them, using them for decoration, landscaping, etc. etc.?

>when ever i see "protip: you can't", i immediately assume that you've made up your mind and you're just running your dick sucker to hear your own voice.
Usually yes, but not this time. I'm willing to be convinced, but not with shit arguments.

>ProTip: You're a Fag
Hello to you too faggot.

>Why is it that everything Marx is so esoteric and incomprehensible?
That's how they bait you, "Look how smart I am -- read these theories". Total fucking waste of time because it's all a basic pyramid scheme.


I want my 50K back, University!!!!

How large of a plant population is there? How likely is it you are going to get a 100% yield from your stock? Plants values are dictated by the scarcity of the plant and the usefulness to medicine, food, or vanity.

What? How do you derive the value from labor when the value was already created I thought labor?

The same plant sone grown naturally and one grown on a farm have vastly different labor costs for a unit of yield but have the same value.

'social necessity of labor' is inherently a non-factor in capitalist society, ergo capitalism does not prove labor theory of value QED

No it doesn't. Value is subjective. Period. Labor theory of value is a leftover from Christianity.

>How do you derive the value from labor when the value was already created I thought labor?
What? What does this question even mean? I think you were trying to say something about some inherent value in the plant, but your question makes no sense.

>The same plant sone grown naturally and one grown on a farm have vastly different labor costs for a unit of yield but have the same value.
They'll be priced differently on the market to compensate for the different in labor costs but in equilibrium all prices and labor costs will equalize.

Here's how that will work. The farm with higher costs will lose out on a few customers since a threshold is reached where customers don't buy the higher priced plant. To compete, the farm will lower its costs by using more efficient processes of employing cheaper labor. It then lowers its prices due to innovation.

This process will continue and now each farm will try to lower the costs to outcompete the other farm. Eventually, an equilibrium state is reached where both farms are using identical processes, identical products, and identical labor - homogeneous replaceable products.

Customer value eventually adjusts to reflect the price of the plant - if a plant is cheap then you have more money to buy other stuff and you begin to value the plant less.

Thus, in equilibrium, the prices reflect labor costs and the buyers value all goods at exactly the prices set by the labor costs since their value of the good changed to reflect its price.

>'social necessity of labor' is inherently a non-factor in capitalist society
What shit is this faggot? Don't take issue with some esoteric point in LTV and think you know shit. Fucking Nazi faggot. You're a fucking disgrace to all Nazis dead and alive.

>No it doesn't.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. But this is not an argument, it's your opinion.
>Value is subjective.
Value of what is subjective?

Labor itself doesn't create value. Labor is a cost measured in training, time, and resources used. It's output needs to produce a good or service that has value that can be sold the labor itself does not create that value, it's part of its costs.

Ignore that faggot see below

>The farm with higher costs will lose out on a few customers since a threshold is reached where customers don't buy the higher priced plant. To compete, the farm will lower its costs by using more efficient processes of employing cheaper labor. It then lowers its prices due to innovation.

No, instead they open a Whole Foods where upper middle class mom's pay out the nose for the same product they could get at Tom Thumb, but fuck it, at least they can say they don't shop with the 'plebeians'.

>Value of what is subjective?
All value in general. The idea that value is something inherent to goods or somehow absolute is a Christian idea and is nonsense. Marx took the idea from christian economists of the time.

>It's output needs to produce a good or service that has value that can be sold the labor itself does not create that value, it's part of its costs.
Right, I get that you're saying there needs to be a demand. I can't just lift bricks in some place and expect people to pay me money. LTV never advocates for waste labor. It is used to measure the value of goods and services that are consumed.

Right. Labor, as a cost, basically just sets a floor on price necessary to turn a profit. It doesn't impart value or anything nonsensical like that. You could just as easily say there is a "cost theory of value," since any goods will need to be priced to cover costs (or the business loses money and goes under).

sorry you got mad that I BTFO you in one sentence. The social necessity of labor is a central tenant of LTV user, if you don't know that you need to go back and read marx.

"Social necessity" is just weasel words to work subjective value theory into it. Obviously something is "socially necessary" only because it is valued subjectively.

>No, instead they open a Whole Foods where upper middle class mom's pay out the nose for the same product they could get at Tom Thumb,
Yeah, Whole Foods is charging for the labor it takes to build the brand value of Whole Foods. How does this disprove LTV?

Capitalism makes you happy.

>Value of what is subjective?
>All value in general.
Ok, but how does this disprove LTV?

>Capitalism makes you happy.
>Government handouts makes Elon Musk happy
FTFY.

>Work 80hrs a week making horse whips
>nobody buys them
????

>The social necessity of labor is a central tenant of LTV user, if you don't know that you need to go back and read marx.
Oh really? You came to wrong neighborhood Nazi fag. Define social necessity of labor.

>sorry you got mad that I BTFO you in one sentence.
And faggot, the next time don't fucking conflate Marx with Labor Theory of Value. LTV was advocated by people like Adam Smith long before Marx got involved.

Faggot.

Because LTV is the idea that value is inherent in goods and is imparted by labor. I think maybe you don't understand what LTV actually is.

I spent 12hrs sculpting a poop sculpture of Marx?
Shouldn't that cost as much of the labor of a doctor working for 12hrs?

Capitalism makes you happy.

Of course not, the Doctor laboured 10 years through medical school. How long did you spend studying poop sculpture?

>flour is harvested and processed on its own
>flour flies over to my pantry

So this is your brain on capitalism?

My whole life, it's my fetish

He stole overpriced gov contracts from greedy established fat cats with low-cost rockets through competition.

He built and launched a $90 M rocket while the Senate Launch Spaceship will cost per launch around $2000 M maybe in 2020+!

Nice try user.

>Because LTV is the idea that value is inherent in goods and is imparted by labor.
LTV does not say that goods have inherent value. It only says that labor has value and the value of all goods and services is determined by the average labor required to produce it. So when you say LTV says that goods have inherent value, that's wrong.
>I think maybe you don't understand what LTV actually is.
Man, weak attempt at trolling. Read above. Goods don't have value till they are created by labor and that value is what LTV tries to capture.

>Capitalism makes you happy.
>Elon Musk from Bald to no Bald
Kek.

> Whole Foods is charging for the labor it takes to build the brand value of Whole Foods.
Really, user. You're 100% sure those higher costs are entirely due to labor on Whole Foods side? No consumer preference, change in tastes, conspicuous consumption, etc comes into play in the price equation?

> goods have inherent value
> Goods don't have value till they are created by labor

Wait, which is it?

Chad you way up.

>Turn entire agriculture sector over to flour production
>Expect the same price because the labour effort is the same
The Soviets spent 70 years wondering why they kept on getting surpluses and shortages. The only solution they had was more bureaucrats.

>He stole overpriced gov contracts from greedy established fat cats with low-cost rockets through competition.
There is no competition in that sector. Boeing decided to enter and Musk lost his shit.
>He built and launched a $90 M rocket while the Senate Launch Spaceship will cost per launch around $2000 M maybe in 2020+!
Yeah, he overworks his employees and pays them less money because they have no employment otherwise. How does this disprove LTV?

Wild edible plants have value with no labor involved

>What is risk
>What is overhead

Because you, like most of Sup Forums are retarded. Most people here shitting on Marxism do not understand it at all and have probably never read anything relating to Marxism

>Boeing decided to enter and Musk lost his shit.
What? Boeing?! Shit??!
>no employment otherwise
Please explain here too user.

>us communists took 100 years to come to a conclusion free-marketists made at the beginning of time, but we still can't see the bigger picture and think control over an economy is even possible

>Really, user. You're 100% sure those higher costs are entirely due to labor on Whole Foods side?
Will customers ever pay a price that is higher than their personal value of the product? If whole foods can charge more, then it's because people are willing to pay more for brand value - but this brand value is not magic fairy dust. It takes time to create and market.

Face it, you have no argument. Whole Foods charges more because it's selling its products on two fronts - actual product and the brand of the product. There are two markets here and you're confusing them for one.
>No consumer preference, change in tastes, conspicuous consumption, etc comes into play in the price equation?
It does, but LTV never said consumers can't have a preference. It only says the price of goods should be the cost it takes to make them. How does it not apply to Whole Foods products? It takes labor for Whole Foods to get its products and build brand value - that is why they charge more money.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

>edible plants do not have to be harvested before being sold

>LTV does not say that goods have inherent value.
>It only says that labor has value and the value of all goods and services is determined by the average labor required to produce it.
These two sentences contradict each other. The second statement is an affirmation of inherent value, as opposed to subjective value.

> goods have inherent value
>Goods don't have value till they are created by labor
>Wait, which is it?

Goods don't have value till they are created by labor. I understand for your pea sized brain the difference is too subtle to grasp. But a shoe only has value if you create it. If I keep talking about a shoe but never create a shoe, then the shoe really has no tangible value. A shoe's value comes into existence once it's brought into existence by labor.

People confuse the value of a shoe, made by labor, with an inherent value because they see shoes being sold and they predict that more shoes will be sold. Thus, they assign an imaginary value to shoes based on projected sales. But this value does not exist until the shoe is actually brought into existence by labor - which has costs.

Try actually making an argument first

So an apple from an orchard is worth way more than an apple I found growing in the wild?

If I set the apple I found in the wild right next to the one that was grown on a labor intensive orchard you could tell me which one cost more right?

>Chad you way up.
>Elon Musk from bald to Chad due to the gifts of capitalism
Kek.

You need to learn the difference between value and price.

you are very mad. It is normal to have an emotional reaction when your beliefs are proven incorrect. Concerning the social necessity of labor, I don't have to define it, marx already did. Here, have a read:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/ch02.htm#c6

Your central premise is demonstrably incorrect, I have proven it using the very proponent of it, marx, and you have done nothing to demonstrate my argument is flawed. You are impotent and wrong.

Why can't Sup Forums understand Marxism

>an apple I found growing in the wild?
Where do you live that you find apples growing in the wild? The wild apple trees in my hometown either do not have apples or the apples are of a very poor quality and filled with worms.

And again, "social necessity" is just a way of sneaking subjective value in through the back door to make it coherent.

Well not apples but I had wild pears all the time where I lived. Good stuff

But either way doesn't change the question

As long as "The Leader" is benevolent. If not. You're screwed.

>>no employment otherwise
>Please explain here too user.
There are more rocket scientists than there are jobs and that's why Musk pays them less for their labor.
>But you just said Must pays them less and LTV says their output must be just as equally valuable as government projects
No, in government projects there are many more people and more regulations. That is why government projects are costly. Bureaucracy, though bad, is still labor. Musk does away with all that and eliminates transaction costs by getting his engineers to double up as administrators as well.
It costs Musk less because collectively, the labor expended by Musk and co is lesser than NASA and co due to reduced bureaucracy.

In a fair system, Musk's employees should benefit from the profits generated by the minimization of bureaucratic processes - but they don't since Musk pays them exactly as much they work - which implies that Musk keeps the profits from eliminating bureaucracy - and the workers get paid less since they don't get the profits - they only get how much they worked for.

I understand Marxism just fine.

Labour is a cost, like raw materials and capital investment. Value is subjective. A product won't get made unless the value judged by the market is higher than the cost.
This is so intuitive and obvious I'm not sure why communists haven't moved on.

>These two sentences contradict each other.
Yeah, I wasn't clear there. Here's a better explanation

I am not arguing that LTV is correct, I don't believe it to be. I am arguing that a capitalist society inherently disproves it. Marx gave a definition for 'social necessity', and in a capitalist society 'personal necessity' supersedes its. Both are subjective - capitalist societies do not try and put object values on goods. - but the way sin which the value is measured are mutually exclusive.

>But either way doesn't change the question
see

>The wild apple trees in my hometown either do not have apples or the apples are of a very poor quality and filled with worms.
That answers your question. There is a reason as to why labor is necessary.

>You need to learn the difference between value and price.
Price is the tangible realization of value. They're not different but related.

The pears I ate where just as good or better than store pears

How can you not wrap your head around wild plants being on par with mass produced plants?

>Value is subjective
Everyone here keeps parroting the same thing - value is subjective. Yeah, but you have to make it tangible by making a decision on that value.
>A product won't get made unless the value judged by the market is greater than or EQUAL to the cost.
FTFY.

This is important in equilibrium where a consumer's value of a product matches its costs.
>This is so intuitive and obvious I'm not sure why communists haven't moved on.
I don't think it's as intuitive as you think it is. Everyone here is saying some half assed shit. No one has concretely disproven LTV yet.

Capitalism will prevail until a more widely accepted method of recording transactions other than money presents itself.

>Concerning the social necessity of labor, I don't have to define it, marx already did
Nice deflection fag. You can't explain shit without pointing to sources.

Dude, if a wild orchard produced the same amount and the same quantity as a well treated orchard, then why would farmers treat orchards?

>The pears I ate where just as good or better than store pears
I do not doubt that, store fruit is 99% of the times inferior to the one i pick up from the source. Especially grapes. When i was a kid i used to ransack every farmer around me.

>You can't explain shit without pointing to sources.

are you arguing that sourcing information from an expert (in that field) weakens the information? You must be trolling, or a complete imbecile.

>it's because people are willing to pay more for brand value - but this brand value is not magic fairy dust. It takes time to create and market.
Or it's completely out of the control of Whole Foods, because there is a listeria scare dropping the value people will pay.

If it's $5/lbs on Monday then $2/lbs on Tuesday due to a listeria scare, how did that drop in price translate to any change in labor costs?

>I steal others personal property
Sounds about right

I am not arguing the same amount is possible from the wild. I am stating that under labor theory that the pear from the wild that might better actually has less value to an inferior mass produced pear.

Of course the wild pear is viewed as more tasty and just as valuable in reality

>work hard on something
>not perfect so you throw it away
>Marx stands in stark refutation
Marxism isn't even profound or relatively interesting.
low tier.

>are you arguing that sourcing information from an expert (in that field) weakens the information?
No, I'm asserting that you know jack shit.
>You must be trolling, or a complete imbecile.
Oh, we're not even half way through and you're already resorting to projecting? Tch tch. I expected more from a Nazi LARPer.

Marx BTFO

Labor theory of value BTFO

>No, I'm asserting that you know jack shit.

If you believe that I know 'jack shit' and yet my argument still concisely and coherently BTFO of yours (it does and you have been impotent and incapable of attacking it), you should be embarrassed further at the weakness of your arguments.

Nature produces value, you idiot.

youtube.com/watch?v=UltE6U4t8Vc
Ignore the person who replied to you.

>dig up a hole
>fill it back up
>demand a wage

Goddamn, he spends all the video saying Marx didn't mean to say that labour defines value and then at the end says value is determined by labour. Otherwise the art market wouldn't fucking exist. Supply and demand are all you need to explain value.

Did nature create a computer that you used to type this message?

>I'm very smart