Life would be so much easier.
Capital Ch. 1, 1
its like that meme where you go deeper underwater
Reading Theory
Reading Memes About Theory
Reading Blogs Based on Memes About Theory
Watching a YouTube Video Arguing With a Blog Based on a Meme About Theory
Receiving an Ad That Links to A YouTube Video Arguing With a Blog Based on a Meme About Theory
Listening to a US Politician Reference an Ad That Links to A YouTube Video Arguing With a Blog Based on a Meme About Theory <-- Me, getting a Dan Crenshaw flyer in the mail
Dumbass here. How is this not circular logic? Or what am I missing?
Things have value because of labor, but if the thing is worthless, therefore so is the labor, which is therefore actually not labor at all.
Does he earlier define labor as only that work which produces utility?
...I guess I need to stop fucking around and find out by reading Marx.
He earlier makes a dichotomy between use-value and exchange-value.
In this passage Marx is effectively directly refuting (preemptively at that) the infamous "mud pie" argument conservatives like to bandy about pretending it proves Marx and LVT wrong. That being that plenty of labor-time can be invested in making a mud pie, but it can't make the mud pie any less worthless.
the infamous “mud pie” argument conservatives like to bandy about pretending it proves Marx and LVT wrong
The bigger problem with this argument is that the premise is nonsensical. It assumes that mud pies are obviously worthless and that people would actually spend time manufacturing them. You can make exactly the same argument against the subjective theory of value: "hey, imagine if people started buying mud pies for a million dollars each, then the subjective theory of value would imply that they are actually worth a million dollars, which is obviously ridiculous". Clearly there is no theory of value that can make sense out of a hypothetical situation in which people place great value on something that is universally agreed to be worthless.
In my experience neoliberal economics is full of these incredibly lazy arguments that attempt to dismiss the basic foundations of any alternative points of view so that they don't have to actually think about them (the "economic calculation problem" argument against planned economies is another very silly one). It's very weird how the field of economics became so narrow-minded despite there being so little empirical support for many of its accepted theories. Pretty much every other field seems to be more open-minded, even ones like climate science that constantly have to deal with cranks and well-funded campaigns to discredit them.
It is exactly like arguing about Divine Right to Rule with regards to monarchy, or arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin with regards to the infallibility of Church doctrine.
Like, it's an argument designed to waste your time. No one making it cares as long as things continue to benefit them. Anyone who isn't benefiting from it who is supporting it in good faith is just a gigantic fucking moron.
My understanding is: Worthwhile labor creates value. Worthless labor creates little/no value. Destructive labor takes away value
And yea I would probably be much better at explaining it if I read more theory
Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought that "socially necessary labor" refereed to the average amount of time it takes a worker to create a commodity, not whether it meets a human need.
So what would Marx call something which does not really meet a definite human need, but which is nonetheless valued highly within society, i.e. a diamond. Would he call that an example of capitalism's failure to value objects correctly?
Value doesn't just have to relate to necessities, or even objects with practical utility. It can also apply to objects that have social connotations.
You can't eat a diamond, but in your society a diamond is a form of social standing; and because there exists the drive to attain a higher standing in society an individual is driven to vollect and display a greater amount of objects with a high social value.
In general, the labor theory of value states that the more labor it takes to make something, the more its exchange-value goes up.
There's not much use value from a diamond, but they're hard to get. If you could just pick them up off the ground like pebbles, even if they were about as rare, they'd be largely worthless.
Also, some post modernists intending to refute Marx talked about notions of social capital, which exactly are a good expansion of the original theory. A diamond doesn't have good use-value, but it has social use-value. It demonstrates class and status, among other things. Wearing one is a kind of decadent display, as if to say you have so much money, you can wear someone else's wages on your body like a trifle.
Ah - I'm sure that these terms aren't actually encoded in theory, just things I came up with to understand what little theory I have read better - so destructive labor in my mind is to take something that has value and render it with less value - ie take a well done piece of art and splash color on it, or take a car and remove its tires - both of which could be considered labor, but ultimately make the original object worth less than it was before (wrt to art it could actually make it worth more, but that's only if people somehow feel like the lost worth has any artistic value, which would rarely ever be the case)
Thank you! I explained this in the comments, but did not have the citation.
I agree with Marx on that. But saying how it really is is not the same as explaining why the thought proposed in the meme above is wrong. A critique is required.
Lol like Marx talks about exactly that in the first chapter of capital: socially necessary labor time
If I turn 20 yards of linen into a coat, I still have a coat I can use even if no one wants to buy it. It can still have value. Even if it isnt monetary.
But even if people are willing to spend hundreds of dollars for a coat, that value will not materialize if it's still 20 yards of linen.
It's almost like production for production's sake is non-sensical and maybe we should only produce for use/need.
What capitalists don't understand: Adam Smith came up with the labor theory of value. Marx was just the one to notice the contradictions in it.
If I jack off into a gold bar and no one wants to buy it cuz it has my fluids on it, does that mean that the bar holds no value now?
I am willing to pay infinity dollars for it.
We did it boys, we have created infinite value. Post scarcity, here we come.
This loser acting like he's discovered the secret of the pharohs when we talked about the subjective and labor theories of value on the literal first day of macroecon 101 back in undergrad.
I don't know, that right here is only 4 sentences and it's done on number on my beliefs on a universal human brotherhood.
In today's episode of what ignorant people think Marx' ideology is: Marxism is when you want all labor and zero capital
This is core republican theory of value. Would you believe that it was written by a a rich guy?
In this sense, we have no idea how much we value preventing climate catastrophe, regardless of how much money it would save. We have no idea how much we value nobody going hungry or being homeless. And, in this case, we're pretty certain corporate lobbying in government is a good thing. We're also pretty sure that the banana wars were the most just and worthwhile wars in American history.
The laborer then becomes the most wretched of commodities and so on.
99% of arguments against Marx are things he anticipated and preemptively refutes in the first fucking chapter of Capital.
Also, academic arguments about whether theory is "true" or not is not the point of theory.
Newtonian physics isn't true. But if you want to go to the Moon, you can use it to get you there. It's fine.
It's not like the ruling class is going to pop a monocle if they find out Marx is right. They don't give a single shit either way. The system benefits them.
It's like arguing about whether the Roman Emperor really is a living god or not. The truth or falsehood of that argument is not why it exists.
This is the same baby brain shit as when conservatives can’t understand the sex vs gender argument. It’s just a difference in definition. What he describes as value a marxist would describe as price. He’s a capitalist, so to him price is inherent “value” - fair - but marx is doing most of his work considering labor as the value he is observing.
Like literally just understand that marx is using the word value in a different way. Semantic arguments like his make me want to die
gonna use my sorosbucks to fund research into an algorithm that accurately determines whether someone has read marx and posts the results as a comment on their critiques of marx
