So a question about labour theory: by what is the price of intellectual value determined??

all porkies must die

Attached: 1483472051833.jpg (1990x762, 216.4K)

But they're too cute

Attached: d336cab75a6f57d05dbfe7a269aee047810990037b5401381f9da0a69de066e0.png (2592x1728, 8.35M)

eat the rich

Attached: s-l300.jpg (300x225, 26.15K)

Attached: 16f0de0d7de233bdd08228fb7ce74f3f9acc13c251e67c4d18621611bb381d90.png (400x598, 238.29K)

Attached: Baked-Bacon.jpg (600x828, 147.82K)

Attached: 46f02c1bd18dcfd44f34995f1721c6dfd4cd362988c9e789dcd5178099ac9203.png (630x575, 715.04K)

This a bad form of reasoning anyway, dont armchair philosophers philosophies new ways of thinking? Essentially an intellectual product no?

Also

I don't know, virtual items can be theorectially replicated to near ad-infinitum

Attached: 0f08wpg5mizy.jpg (799x768, 145.41K)

Attached: bacon-lover.jpg (580x386, 22.38K)

Attached: 64bbd33f51772317e6e464d669e6556c5889af8a68007ddfda5c719a7ea33150.png (630x388, 595.54K)

Like I said, it would be rendered as just another idea which falls into the public sphere,
you can't commodify ideas in a communist society.

I care more about the utility of the ideas in practice anyway, philosophy is supposed to be actualised not just formulated.

That's true, the cost of reproduction of a digital good is near zero. But piracy is actually a marginal phenomenon with little impact on the popularity of theater attendance or Netflix subscriptions.

Attached: Best bacon butty.jpg (615x409, 39.07K)

Attached: 7454424218a9f2ce2b9f75522b89a10c67818ff04f61c92f058777f6534bcc75.jpg (720x1221, 152.19K)

youtube.com/watch?v=59LdaOb_Qt8
youtube.com/watch?v=nEKpyzyn6N8
youtube.com/watch?v=KiBQKN7HhqI

Attached: 7665804f3aa4974a70f1996c6791714e0b449c55883f8ddb5d818e7e4bc577c5.png (736x736, 717.5K)

sure but philosophers can't actualise all of their ideas on their own, so it's more reasonable to expect their formulation of a philosophy as a "product" no?

popularity of initial attendance no, but for the filmakers and related companies eehh it packs a pretty painful punch, even more painful for games

Sure, but my shit is also a product then
does that deserve a designated value?

you know, i think another animal but the pig should be used, pigs have been shown to be intelligent, cooperative and even accepting of human love.

Attached: 1491594244881.png (281x364, 131.23K)

I mean, it has value, fecal matter when treated properly can be used as fertilizer (although human crap is too toxic to be used initally as fertizilizer and requires a period of sterilization.)

yeah, exactly, but it is not socially necessary
so it's value becomes subjective to whoever values it.
Something socially necessary carries objective value with it, like labour which produces goods.

well fertilizer has to come somewhere, and is absolutely necessary for modern mass production of agriculture, although probably not human poop though

still, are philosophies not needed to advance human thought?

Exactly. Does anyone have that webm of the british documentary about pigs?

Attached: d23432a17104faa2aa372b60bbf6965f9e61a18a5d66d2b0386e39c9c8a0253f.png.jpg (255x230, 11.9K)

They can be
but they also have to work somewhere too, philosophy alone will not sustain a society.

Yeah, but it has to be produced once first. And patched, and modded, and expanded, and debugged. You ask, what about intellectual labour? Well, look at the video game industry. It's not about sparks of genius, it's about putting teams of trained specialists to work. It's no different than any other production process. The labour time is here all the processes described.

Of couse, you cannot justify IP with LTV. IP is just parasitical rent. There are arguments in IP law about incentivizing, but really, it's almost all just rent collection. That's why Disney can retain its IPs forever - there is no amount of incentivizing innovation there. It in fact strangles it, keeping people from creatively repurposing Disney "property".

well, agriculture alone cannot keep mankind alive, so needs are not standalones, but a combination of things man needs to surrvive and strive.

youtube.com/watch?v=_ixJXruwWOY

Well it depends, IP is a double edged sword, it allows corporations to hold monopolies but it can be a short term incentive for growth in terms of consumer products

it would be a concept of a bygone era under communism though.

Is OP actually claiming that it take individuals to "create" ideas, instead of ideas being things formed in response to material nessecity?

Thanks fam, but I'm pretty sure it's a different documentary

Attached: 68d5d12544cffd3eef8c6584d0af01127d6b578108df6ac0940147d09e8c0e6d.png (1600x1492, 6.12M)

I don't think that philosophising falls under socially necessary labour
it will be hard to change my mind on that
you can come up with stuff in your own free time, I don't see how your hobby should exempt your from further work though.

yes
OP thinks that creating ideas can be compared to expending labour to create goods.

Obviously that is nonsense, but creating any kind of philosophical work would require labour. It has to be written out, edited, and so on.

Well philosophy could have a required section on application, where philosophists would have to arrange experiments to prove their theories

I don't deny that
but I don't see it as socially necessary

yeah, that would probably fall under social science
I did specify in my initial post that I was commenting on "armchair philosophy", to just sit and come up with stuff to self-congratulate yourself on your intellect.

What?

Attached: confused.png (300x256, 101.83K)

armchair philosophy falls under self-publishing too. You are just putting your ideas out there,
basically like a thread on 8chad.

Usually today scientists are employed in research institute or an university. This model might continue with a society via its planning democratic way deciding on how much to allocate to scientific research.

Scientists in turn would have to instead start working together instead of competing for grants. Focus research on real output while documenting it instead of making it about writing as much of research papers and publishing them in famous journals. Today the system is functioning but is burdened by unnecessary bureaucracy and other drains of productivity.

Some people suggest that scientists and engineers should spend some time as teachers. No theory is useful unless it has immediate material or informational use and is reproduced by other people.

It takes individuals to process the information. Simply input->processing->output. They take existing information and process it to new information. Nothing is being created but the entropy from their organism living. Jacques Ranciere in Ignorant Schoolmaster poses that all intelligence is equal in the capability of learning and processing information. Of course differences in speed are present.

If you feel in life like the main hero of Sartre's book Nausea even without ever reading the book, then that book is kinda important to people who feel like that and can use it to show others their view of existence in general. All important ideas need to be formulated, written, edited, typeset, printed and archived. People are curious and want to learn and best way to learn something new is to expand on existing information. Otherwise we would be stuck reinventing the wheel figuratively speaking.

In highschool it was stated to us that effectively everyone can become a philosopher if life circumstances forces them to it. As for the social necessity, it is as necessary as is the time needed to write, edit, rewrite and so on. If society does accounting in labour time, no one can extort royalties from books anymore. A book would be only worth time spent writing it, the paper it is on, and work of all people involved. Then the actual writing of a book is a small part of value. Yet some authors rake in the royalties like crazy.

But that leaves us with a question of who will actually give input to whom about what to write?

There is no such thing as intellectual value. Intellectuals are not engaged in production, but that does not mean that they are not socially important - education, even 'non-productive' ones like philosophy, is always a net benefit, all other things being equal. Obsessing over 'real labour' or whatever is just vulgar Marxism. In communism, the SNLT will be reduced to the point where every person can engage in intellectual pursuits.

Higher education can't just be a 'hobby'. You need institutions where people can learn this stuff and develop new theories. Lectures and personal interaction will always be superior to reading books.

"look at that stupid lazy philosopher he sits while he thinks" hur durr

I found the perfect animal for your troubles, behold, the rat.

Attached: 2891013802.jpg (230x339, 31.52K)

Rats are cute tho

Attached: 1bf1975e46f3e2611161deda7e504e59a2f3bca1269281a74e8f79459518d8c7.png (600x635, 768.23K)

"thinking is dumb especially when youre sitting down"

yes

everybody thinks
philosopher is just a self-granted title.

Rats and mice both display societal intelligence

As a matter of fact, rats and crows remain so numerous and successful due to their societal cooperation and general intelligence, not far from a mirror of ourselves in some ways.

yeah, rats are great

Attached: cute-pet-rats-13__880.jpg (880x550, 82.27K)

Not everyone organizes their thoughts in a convincing or useful systematic work. There is value in that kind of work.

Except most people don't spend years of their lives thinking and writing about what they think and learning from people who spent even more time thinking and writing. Obviously everyone can 'do philosophy' but without an actual philosophical education you're probably just retreading old ground.

Even with a "philosophical education" you are just retreading old ground. Thats the whole point about education of things like philosphy or history, it doesnt teach you anything new.

like I said in my original post

I have no issues with philosophy in an academic application.

does this include artists and authors who craft a story after years?
do they fulfil a social necessity with their work?

the thing about thinking for yourself is that you will retread old ground; academia is in shambles today in an ideal world youd be right but there is no real guidance just subversion and indoctrination - the best thing you can learn from studying philosophy in university is if you have a genuine philosophical inclination.

aka you love truth

you think philosophy and history are settled affairs? every subject is just a branch of philosophy deal with it

Ate a good sausage an hour ago.

They do. People who create things I can enjoy is useful to me. What and how to account for it is open to debate, but it's clear that creative products, if you will, are quantifiably valuable.

No, but education about philosphy and history are about what has passed, about treaded ground.

in what subject do you learn something "new"?

you are talking about the history of philosophy, historical interpretation requires a lot of work to this day and philosophy is imminent always

I see art having a more subjective value than a necessary one
It is not like artists could be employed by society to create things, it is in their own time that they make it, and to certain individuals that their art is valued.

historians wouldnt really be needed if we were post-theory and didnt need to remember where we left off in our last thought experiment

someone who manufactures goods has an objective value and necessary value to society
an artist could not really be compared to that type of service imo

yes value is subjective by its very definition value belongs to a thing its utility not just art

If you aggregate the preferences of enough people, the subjective value becomes predictable, measurable. Think in averages, we are talking of average socially necessary labour time after all. That it is a subjective value does not make it unquantifiable in the aggregate.

So you're specifically talking about people who get a degree and then don't pursue a career in academia? Not everyone is cut out to be an academic, but that doesn't mean they don't enjoy any benefits from their education. Universities have always fulfilled the dual role of advancing knowledge and educating regular people - both are socially useful.

What is your idea of value, exactly? The only objective value is exchange value. Use value is variable and subjective. If everyone already has food, there is no utility in producing more. Art and education have social uses and both improve the lives of everyone in society.

Yes, I agree on your point about art
I am just saying that there ARE objective values and utilities like food production.
Art is not undermined by this fact, I am just understanding the priorities of labour.

sorry OP(brainlet)here i was just asking like how would you determine the value of an intellectual piece of work(either it being a scientifical breakthrough or improvements to the MoP or one of marx' works for example) how would you do that, like you cant just take the "social time needed for that idea" right?
(btw thanks for correcting me ein the whole creating ideas part)
or what works should I read that talk about this?

But the use value of food is not actually objective. Not only does it vary depending on its quality, it also varies depending on the needs of the population. You obviously don't have people doing philosophy when there's no food, but no one is saying that.
And all this said, value is not a very useful term in a communist or even socialist society. There are the needs of the populace, labour, and the SNLT of the needed goods. Value never enters the equation.

Attached: e029a53aadddb76a0beac7c04acf41e0338c0a5b44bb6ef3c369661f8c09124b.png (245x380, 114.83K)

It isn't. Use value has always been a nebulous concept that doesn't actually have any scientific applications and exchange value is only applicable in a society with commodified labour.

But value as in the labour value is still important.
And these concepts are still core to the marxist analysis of capitalism, so they will not stop being important to the left until we live in a fully post-capitalist society.

I never said that the labour theory of value isn't useful, it's just obsolete in a socialist or communist society. Value is a concept developed to explain why certain commodities are sold at certain prices and to understand how those prices change. In a society without commodities, there is no need for a value theory. Economic calculations will either be done in kind or in labour time, such as what Marx described in the Critique of the Gotha Programme.

Its not obsolete in a socialist society, or a lower stage communist society though.
Calculation in labour time does still require value theory as it is necessary to calculate the correct distribution of labour. Read TANS

But if value represents condensed labour time, how is calculation in labour time not also calculation in value? They are identities.

I'm a dumbass. Value =/= exchange value. I should really read more.

Attached: 63f0a0f0f7ddd2e619788a58e9097d76ec39be83df1908bb4e47a7d2ca76ff47.jpg (1024x656, 22.82K)

...

philosophy is a hobby user, let it go

your dreams of being a philosopher king aren't going to happen.

real simple: you write a short essay, and sign into your local union dictator overlord, and if he has a good day you get free stuff

honestly, when it comes to luxurious/trivial/side things like hobbies, art and philosophy, why the heck not use the market principles?

since a piece of philosophy or art has subjective value to different people, why not put it on an auction house where people can bid using other crap that also has subjective value among themselves?

objective stuff that improves means of production, like science and engineering, should have a primacy and be centrally planned, use the damn market for all i care when it comes to the secondaries

Wut?

kys sophist

a piece of philosophy is some opinion a 'philosopher' (whatever that even means honestly) put into an academic paper that is never going to have any citations or use in anyone's life or even other philosophers philosophies

99% of all social 'science' academic papers have 0 citations, and basically none of it is testable or provable or used in anything
same goes for philosophy
its just a feel good type of thing who want to feel smart too even tho they cant do the math

fuck you. these are too cute.

Attached: cute_piglets.jpg (243x207, 7.81K)

Just how they are now. It's not complicated, it's a part of production, and works as such. Paid philosophers, for example, teach at universities or sell books and lectures. This will continue similarly, just any property involved is socially owned. Jesus Christ if I see another """socialist""" I might pass out.