Labor Theory of Value

But supply & demand is indeed a broad abstraction that is observable in nature.

It literally explains why some species are extinct.

Saying that there is no exploitation because life could be worse (and it was at various points in history) is a pretty vague statement. First, you need to be able to quantify what you want to measure. So, indeed, why couldn't the amount being appropriated from the worker ever be quantified? Seems you had an encounter with a rather idiosyncratic "Marxist".

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm

None of this contradicts LTV. See .

Incredibly simplified LTV:

If (use_value > 0){
price trends towards avarage time it takes society to produce one of it;
}
else{
price = 0;
}

Then it's not specific to capitalism or markets, unless you're arguing that capitalism is nature. You are projecting entrepreneurs onto non-rational phenomena - furthermore, something being 'natural' (i.e. owed to processes which are currently external to the domain of our control) doesn't mean that we cannot be beyond it.

Incorrect

Attached: Rothbard.jpg (220x318, 16.03K)

Are you implying that the carrying capacity of any given environment is similar to the production of goods under capitalism?

No, in fact Cockshott has actually compiled data to test it:
youtube.com/watch?v=emnYMfjYh1Q

There are groups of people who are not exploited in capitalism but to fall into this category requires that one have control over appropriation and distribution of the surplus. A typical wage-laborer does not. But a capitalist, self-employed worker, or worker in a cooperative enterprise will have control over production, appropriation, and distribution of a surplus. So these individuals are not exploited in a Marxist sense.
This isn't true, though. Even with the social programs provided in many Western countries they are insufficient for the physical needs of many workers who are frequently reduced to poverty and bankruptcy due to an inability to pay for something like a serious medical treatment. Capitalists frequently "externalize" any such costs onto either the workers or the taxpayer. Workers can only occasionally pay for all their needs solely based upon the wages they earn. More likely they will rely on a combination of public assistance or private charity. There is also the issue of paying for the cost of living via debt, but as the past 10 years have shown this is unsustainable in the long-term.
It can be quantified but the data is often not publicly available. If one had access to the records of a capitalist enterprise it would be fairly straightforward to quantify necessary labor and surplus labor via some comparison of operating costs, profit, and man-hours worked.

Also,
I always recommend reading Chapter One of Capital. It answers virtually every question that has ever been asked about the LTV.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm

nice

Why are people in this thread trying to make some kind of contradiction between LTV and Supply and Demand

Marx regularly acknowledged the principle of supply and demand in governing prices, read him again.

...

Dictionary utterly btfos and destroys Marx with logic and facts

The supply/demand theory of price is unscientific. It relies on logical fallacy.
Read this:
paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2016/07/23/not-even-wrong/

Also, Marx's quote:
"The good man does not grasp the fact that it is precisely the change in the cost of production, and thus in the value, which caused a change in the demand, in the present case, and thus in the proportion between demand and supply, and that this change in the demand may bring about a change in the supply. This would prove just the reverse of what our good thinker wants to prove. It would prove that the change in the cost of production is by no means due to the proportion of demand and supply, but rather regulates this proportion" (Capital vol.III, p. 191)

No, I'm just trying to remind OP of the different definitions of the word, also Marx wasn't one for emotive language. Exploit should be used in the sense I suggested when reading Marx.
Also this
youtube.com/watch?v=1ji_3v5yWLg

Your quote literally proves my point. Marx maintained that supply and demand regulates the price of a commodity but that supply and demand tend toward equilibrium and, when they are held at equilibrium, the price you get is equal to its true value, i.e., the SNLT to produce it.

Marx didn't deny supply and demand. You literally have to be blind to reality to deny supply and demand. The entire principle of shortages or surpluses depends on an intuitive acknowledgement of supply and demand.

But can't something be defined as "socially necessary" if a demand exists for it? Certainly if there is no demand, it cannot be socially necessary.

No. This is the opposite of what Marx says in the quote.

He denied them in the sense you're using.

You really need to read the Cockshott article I linked you.

You're taking the words out of context. The "socially necessary" refers to socially necessary labor-time which is the average amount of time for an ordinary worker to produce a given kind of good. It has nothing to do with whether society thinks this good is "necessary."

This is "labor time"
so this must be the "socially necessary" part? How does SNLT differ from LT? Someone just argued that muh mudpie argument doesn't work because of SNLT. I can see why an economic view based only on "labor time" per se falls apart because not all labor produces things that people want. Can you explain what "socially necessary" means in this context, and how it gets "labor value" out of the mudpie argument?

It's only pseudoscience according to Karl Popper's extremely criticized special-snowflake definition of science. Economics are necessarily a soft science and not subject to the rigor of, say, physics or biology.

But it could be. Which Marxian Economists have been trying to do so for the past two centuries. Supply and demand fall in direct contradiction to that notion.
In the reply to Harvey.

because there's an endless stream of these threads, and usually they end with "Haha, commie cucks, I only pretended to care!"

The mudpie argument or the "hole in the ground argument" goes like this:

"Even if you spend X of labor producing something it will be worth nothing if you can't sell it."

This is true but it's also missing the point. Marx's theory of value is a theory of the relative values of goods being exchanged in a market. Specifically a capitalist market. The assumption is that in a capitalist economy if you can't sell something it won't be produced. Marx's theory makes no judgment about why society produces certain goods, only that their relative values will be determined by the relative distribution of labor.

If a factory can produce widgets at a rate of 1 widget every 2 hours, then the labor-time for that widget is 2 hours.
The socially necessary labor-time is the amount required to produce a good under normal conditions of production and the average degree of skill & intensity of labor. In Marx's theory, the value of a given commodity is basically that of its SNLT and not the particular labor-times required, although individual prices will fluctuate around this. Consumers are generally going to only pay the amount necessary for a given good even if it costs the producer more to produce than average.

The main point in Marx's LTV is that we don't pretend to know why society wants to produce certain things and not others. What we can do is to look at their different relative values by comparing how much time needs to be spent producing X, Y, and Z.

The labor theory of value does not and has never touched on the su next (signal) interpretation of value. It is only interested in the value that arises in the form of exchanges; equilibrium value, and THAT arises from the labor costs (labor) invested in a commodity.

Speculative cost has nothing to do with the LTV.

Actually, Pick up capital (and pick up Wealth of nations while you're at it) before you decide to come on this board and open your stupid trap acting like you are even remotely familiar with what the fuck we are talking about.

Attached: 1534281052243.jpg (601x625, 73.23K)

Exchange Value still only becomes realized when you trade something. You do not know the exchange value of an object until it has a steady exchange rate.

Fellow leftist here. You're misunderstanding the LTV. It is the theory of value, whereas supply/demand exists to explain market prices. These are different things. To compare them is to equivocate them.

Labor time is measure and is measured in value. Value is the same as equilibrium price. It explains equilibrium price. Equilibrium price is when supply and demand equal each other.

Supply and demand both abstract market price away from their equilibrium price (i.e., value). Marx wanted to explain the laws of motion of the capitalist economy. He does this with value in terms of labor time, but prices are always in terms of supply and demand.

The LTV is still falsifiable. It is falsifiable in the same way all good scientific theories are. You can demonstrate that it is ad hoc or show that it doesn't fit the data. As you pointed out, it does fit the data.

All that being said, we never observe value. We only ever observe market prices. That shouldn't matter though. Scientists have posited unobservable things to explain phenomena before, such as electrons and quarks.

Supply and demand isn't a theory of value. It is a theory of market prices, and doesn't make sense without a theory of value to explain equilibrium prices.

We should just automatically link to Jack BTFOing academic agent whenever morons cone here about the LTV

desu

Does the argument go like this?

If supply "increases" it is merely that the socially necessary labor time has decreased. Intuitively, in normal situations, why would there be scarcity in a fair market? If there is demand, supply will be created to meet the demand, right? For example, toilet paper is not "cheap" because there is a lot of it, rather, it costs little labor time to make.
An expensive smartphone has little demand due to having a high price. Advances in the factory where it's made cuts prices to 50% to the end user. Then, the demand rises since more people can buy the phone. Once demand rises (or the manufacturer anticipating this), the supply is increased to match the demand.
It follows that the supply/demand ratio is regulated by the socially necessary labor time required to make a commodity.
Analyzing it using the supply and demand chart, the lines supposedly converge where supply and profit "meet", but in reality, the price of a commodity comes from it's imbued labor time which sets a floor on the possible price, plus profit for the capitalist. This sets the price point, and supply and demand adjust accordingly.

In scenarios when the object is extremely rare. Like a painting, necessary labor time is irrelevant. or in the case of a mtg card, the necessary labor time of a non-rare card and a rare card are the same. there's also the case of artificial scarcity like diamonds. what can be said about these situations coming from the LTV?

...

Because it's not a "standard" commodity. A painting is not reproduced regularly and sold to make a profit, it is closer to a speculative asset than a commodity.
This is a case where a company is exploiting their near-monopoly. If trading cards game companies had on average a greater share of the market, the cards prices would be closer to their necessary labor time.
Again the effect of monopoly.

Yeah, so much fucking conditions right fucking there.

Marx was tripping balls to organize his shit thesis.

Uh yeah, everything works on supply/demand.

So is it true or not?
Because it's true regardless of environment, even in space.

Meanwhile, the LTV requires SPECIFIC environment (market) and CONDITIONS for it to work.

a guy makes a chair in 1 hour, another in 3, the necessary labor time is therefore 2 hours. Furthermore the extra hour of labor the 3 hour guy is doing is lost in favor of the 1 hour guy, which is performing over the average.
Shit's so abstract it's unbelievable.

So if another makes a chair in 2 hour instead of 1, his labor is double?

inb4 you have to prove that the first dude skill is average and the second is not

Falsifiability: if a system is able to explain everything no matter the input either through metaphysical congettures or ad-hoc conditions, it is an unfalsifiable system, or a system that does not provide possibility of refutation thus artificially granting itself scientific status.

S&D: I can explain everything
LTV: I work only under precise conditions and there are plenty of ways to prove me wrong
Which is the unfalsifiable one?

The calculation of the average is done a posteriori. If a guy makes a chair in 1 hour and you in two (and we assume the entire chair industry is you two) the average is 1.5 hours.
The "with average skill and in normal conditions" is just a way to eliminate extreme outliers from the calculation: if there is a third guy making a chair without any instrument and doing so as a hobby, it will take possibly entire days if not weeks, his contribution to the "average" can be therfore ignored as far as necessary labor time is concerned.

So again, it is arbitrary.

If everyone decides to follow the boss and make the chair all at 4 hours, the labor is tripled.

In short, it's a system where people are encouraged to do things as slow as possible to get more out of it.

I dunno, but I know which system is observable in nature, and which requires arbitary checking of "skill".

...

...

Where does the Dodo go?

t. lazy nigger

Boss should whip you more.

You are inventing problems.
If everyone decides to work 4 hours to make a chair it's simply a case of oligopoly. In fact it is almost exactly what happens with diamonds in the real world: a company has hegemony over the market and is able to dictate the necessary labor time, thus artificially inflating the value of those goods.

What would happen in a real market however is that another guy, noticing the inefficiency of his colleagues, will start producing at the old 1 hour… actually let's start using proper names, a guy working is unecessarily simplistic:
If a company works at a necessary labor time of 4 hours to produce chairs, another company, knowing it can produce chairs at a faster pace, will join the chair market and produce at 1 hour.
Why would they do so? Because the current value of chairs is at 4 hours, therefore if they produce at 1 hour, they make a profit of 3 hours worth of money for each sold chair.
As they gain more market share, the average value will shift and the old company will start losing money: after a while chairs will be worth 2.5 hours, they, producing at 4 hours, are losing 1.5 hours worth of money each time they sell a chair.
Eventually they will have to improve or go bankrupt.

There is plenty of empirical evidence for the validity of the LTV, while S&D is more often than not assumed true.

I guess you are right. I shouldn't have contributed to this thread.

This is a real problem in many factories, especially in socialist countries where people are paid per hour, and not work done.

But there is no market under socialism! Who will compare it too?

Oh wait, you can't. And if you force the niggers to work harder, you are infringing on their worker's rights. Congrats, nigger, you should get sued.

Also, under socialism, the workers can just democratically fire the boss who says they work too slow.

Which is?

Meanwhile, even socialist countries employ S&D.

LTV should be renamed into Lazy Nigger Value (LNV).

The LTV is a law that describes capitalist production, not socialist production. The entire point of communism is to overcome the LTV, because in it exploitation is a necessary component.

drive.google.com/file/d/0BxvNb6ewL7kOdWhYSEI4OVJHTkk/view
users.wfu.edu/cottrell/eea97.pdf
reality.gn.apc.org/econ/DZ_article1.pdf
reality.gn.apc.org/econ/Zachariah_LabourValue.pdf
weeklybolshevik.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/diego-guerrero-input-output-and-dynamic-values-a-spanish-perspective.pdf
Now please provide empirical evidence for the validity of S&D

Lobert arguing with Zig Forumsack.
I'm enjoying the show.

Attached: 5c2cd9c4a6b749d91690a3354dfdd4ac540aefad3699c38f9a2ba97ec5ab32a9.jpg (500x465, 72.01K)

Wow you just beat not one but two Zig Forumstards in retard. I am describing the workings of the LTV in a normal market as opposed to the invented on the spot thought experiment of the idiot I was replying to.

So under socialism, how will the wage of worker be calculated?

inb4 there wouldn't be wage

Same ass deal for labor voucher.

Holy shit, those fucking math formula sure do you how your labor can triple if you laze around!

Go in any market, buy all the goods, return tomorrow to see if the goods increase price or not.

Sorry, thread is getting confusing with the bait.

Because niggers working slow as possible while demanding for pay is not real.

Because this was not a problem in socialist countries where there's no competition involved, and why they go "revisionist".

Lazy nigger lol

Labor vauchers are a way to make money not accumulable. That's it. Not the solution to all.
I provided evidence, not my fault you are too dumb to understand.
Give me an actual study please. If I told you there is a little green man on the other side of the moon you would ask for photos and not accept a "go look yourself" response.
The "thought experiment" part was imagining the entire chair industry being artifically slowed down, idiot.
This does not even make sense…

Serf pays feudal lord depending on the harvest yield, in fact, the lord is gonna whip the serf if they laze around.
So again, do you just jump to gay nigger dick communism one day one? How is your thought experiment?
Who needs study when you can do it right now?
Because no country on this Earth believes on the LTV, they all work in a market and they all compare the amount of goods produced.
I was super clear in that, what part doesn't it make sense?

user, is there something you want to tell us?

Attached: d6ac1b87a44cec0862b325f872ec049e052eb392.png (640x443, 136K)

I don't see how this is relevant.
Labour vauchers would susbstitute money, making accumulation of capital close to impossible and thus preventing the resurgence of capitalist forces within society while communism is still far away.
Who needs science when you have a strong feeling that you are right?
I don't see how this responds to my point. At all.
What do revisionists have to do with anything? Why would this be a problem in a socialist country? How are you dedcting this was indeed a real problem in historical socialist countries?

Attached: f3f146e3aec15fb667fe7b810589ff83905e6e24a16c868b5b0184e48e0b3d59.png (675x510, 325.29K)

Can't you read, nigger?

It means the system of S&D remains unchanged.
And how exactly do you calculate labor voucher?
Science is the study of nature, what you are doing IS science.
It relates to you how this is a thought experiment when this problem actually exists.
Why do revisionists "revise" and add in a market?
Because they lack a market to accurately judge the skill of laborers and niggers can be lazy?
On how they all decide to embrace market economy?

Ahahaha feudal tithes now are S&D material… The name seems to imply some sort of exchange would have to happen to be applicable, but you do you user.
I don't know… something labour hours something something.
What you are doing, instead, is not, which was my point. I see we agree on this one.
I do remind you that your thought experiment involved an entire industry decreeing in unison the value of a certain commodity. What you are describing now quite far from it.
What?
The market "evaluates" skills and lazyness a posteriori, not a priori (otherwise prices would be fully predictable). If this is the case, then any system that can at least do the same can be at least as efficient.
What? You think there was a vote? That the population collectively decided to go full cap?
Actually in the Soviet Union there has been a popular vote on the matter, and it actually came in favor of socialism… but the bureaucrats went forward anyway.

But the exchange does happen, the feudal protects the peasants in exchange for harvest yield.
Which means you can laze around and get voucher lol
How is it not?
Really? We are talking about a factory, in reality, market exists, so comparison exists, niggers are gonna be fired or whipped to work faster.
What? You don't know China has a market now?
It evaluates how many goods are produced and quality, thus determining the prices and wages. Any company that decides to pay more or less will be slowly weed out.
Which requires a market.
Which means what? Vote or not it does not matter, what matters is why the government allows the market to go back in.
Which means what again? The populace have been enjoying the black market before the bureaucrats even entertain bringing market back.>>2644588

wew

Two firms make identical products. Since the products are identical, it stands to reason that they sell for the same price. One firm is far more efficient than the other, being able to do twice the output with the same amount of person-hours. So by that standard it is twice as efficient. And you have trouble understanding that?

In exchange for you working for him some of your time, he protects you from not being murdered by the goons that he would order to murder you if you didn't work for him.

test

Hey if leftism is so great then why did capitalists invent antibiotics?????

The soviets were ONLY able to treat wound infections during WW2 SPECIFICALLY because of how capitalism takes greed and fear and turns it into innovation and creation, which manifested itself as sulfa drugs.

Checkmate left-cucks.. freedom wins everytiem

Attached: downloadn (4)