What is the best argument against Karl Marx's labor theory of value?

I havent read it because its way too long but Marx fails to consider human nature

I don't give a fuck how much labor went into my sandwich, I'm not gonna spend 20 bucks on it

lol
this is like a /pol/tard telling you to read MacDonald

Jevons, Walras, Menger are your bois..

How can one group of people be so fucking based?

It *used* to be the transformation problem, but that has since been addressed by later marxists. Most arguments against LTV are strawmen like the mud pie argument, which Marx addresses in the first chapter of Capital.

/Thread

>Most arguments against LTV are strawmen like the mud pie argument, which Marx addresses in the first chapter of Capital.

This is the real difficulty, finding critiques that are actually substantive rather than critiques which attack premises Marx doesn't actually have.

You're probably most likely to find it among Marxists.

Why are Marxists so violent?

why don't you read marx for yourself and find out?

do you need help tying your shoelaces?

The Mirror of Production

but violence is good

its easy mane
>man spends 100 hours carving intricate sculpture out of frozen cow shit
>nobody wants to exchange anything for it because it is useless and gross
despite how much labor he put into it it's not worth anything

wow, I wonder who made this post
get out brit scum

quote him you lazy faggot

>literally just copy pasting this shit from the last thread despite it already being BTFO

even if Marx' ideas were true, fascism is still way preferable to communism, blue haired genderblob kommissars and state mandated homosexuality

Name one communist country that wasn't anti-homosexual

The fact mainstream economists stopped using it in the 18-fucking-80s

Gayland.

I'm talking about modern communism, these people unironically care more about Peggy McIntosh and Judith Butler than Marx

Economists are the priests of capitalism

the most successful economics supported imperialism over capitalism

imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism

what?

> t. mass murderer of thousands of people: Lenin
conquest is inherently different from the values of capitalism as imperialism is inherently related to piety whereas capitalism is a value of money-grubbing burghers who are traditionally shy of warfare and upset markets. Along with economic regimentation and the traditionally mercantile policies of imperial states.

sup retard

Capitalism necessitates the expansion of markets due to falling rates of profit. Only way to do so is through imperalism. They go hand in hand

im sure you get this a lot but you are legitimately retarded

Literally any communist country in the past, like any other country in the past. Homosexuality was "integrated" only recently, after communism has disappeared. Homosexuality was too threating in its original anti-family-values anarchist form so it had to be neutralized by liberals and their conservative bourgeois values. Now you have propaganda about gays adopting children whereas homosexuality of the 20th century was all about not giving shit about relationships or family and just fucking whoever you wanted. Hence why AIDS was associated with it.

actually they start promoting peace so they can just start trade deals with people like the Americans are with China.
>falling rates of profit
as long as population rises so do profits

Both of them are just partial aspects of global hegemony.

Damn, I've read that as "was anti-homosexual". I'm too drunk.

>if you don't agree with Lenin you are retarded
I guess Marx and Mao were retarded then

Imperialism didn't even exist yet when Marx was alive and Mao was a Leninist so what are you talking about

Mao was a maoist who hated industry and western culture. Mao accused both Stalin and Lenin of being advisers to the masses of the people whereas his courts were independent of him an were even more bloody. Their only reall alliance was during WW2 which after the japanese occupation were forced out by China.
>imperialism didnnt exist
Marx was alive in 1870 adn writing, the brithsh, roman, and chinese empires come to mind by that time.

Value is only what someone else is willing to pay for a given object/service etc. at the time that whomever wishes to sell it.

There is no intrinsic value in anything.

When there are more laborers than there is demand for that labor, their value will fall unless the state steps in or some body like a trade guild restricts the supply.

>roman, and chinese empires come to mind by that time.
Those are pre-capitalist societies.I thought imperialism was the highest stage of capitalism.

>pre-capitalist
capitalism is a regression from imperialism

Pre-industrial, not pre-capitalist. One can argue there is no such thing as 'pre-capitalist' anywhere land ownership existed. Just that 'means of production' in earlier times meant your horse, your kids and your patch of dirt.

Imperialism was dead and buried by 1945. Empire, not imperialism, is the highest stage of capitalism.

>things that never happened

>tfw you find out the basis for antisemitism is jealousy

the labor theory of value makes no sense to me

someone could spend painstaking labor creating a cheese sculpture of jesus. doesnt mean its worth much of anything. i wouldn't buy it. so how can it be said to have an objective value relative to its labor? meanwhile it would take less labor to kill a deer and skin it, yet I would find the meat far more valuable to me. or am i totally misunderstanding it

lmao at how liberals ruined homosexuality, back in the 20th century homos had Foucault and Burroughs, now they have ''Modern Family''. hahaha

Don't confuse price with value.

The best argument against Karl Marx's labor theory of value is that he was a JEEEEEEEEEW oy vey a JEW oy gevalt these goyim I tell ya JEW Jew JEW Jew JEW bagels JEEEEEEEEEW big nosed money loving JEW elite JEEEEEW curly hair JEEEEEEE EEEEEEEW white genocide JEW feh what would I want with these goyim JEEEEEEEEEW verklempt JEW Jew JEW Jew JEW nagging mother JEEEEEEEEW nice Jewish boy JEW Jew JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEW by god I'll brain that bloody Jewman JEW I'll crucify him I will JEEEEEEEEEEEEEW Kek a kike! Kek a kike! Kek a kike! JEEEEEEEEEEEEEW /pol/pol/pol/pol/pol/pol/ JewJewJewJewJewJew can't spell Jew without "ew" JEEEEEEEEeeeeeEEEEEEW rabbi JEW big nose (for you) JEEEEEEEEEEEW jerry Seinfeld JEEEEEW Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew Jew oy vey It's another Shoah J E W J E W J E W remember the six billion goyim! Jewjewj ew jew jej jej e jew jew jew JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Pretty much. Jealousy and insecurity about themselves.

Are you faggots still Austrians?

Literally was thinking of Modern Family while writing that post but could remember the name.

Dude just tell you professor he was a Jew, or you could take the more PC approach and say that he literally got everything wrong. Either one typically works.

imperialism is an ongoing phenomena

imperialism is succesful geopolitics

>muh mudpie argument

Marx didn't talk about 'labor' without qualifiers being the source of value, but about socially necessary labor time. Capitalism is a social relationship between people disguised as a relationship between things. This should be specially evident in our current service based economy, in which most people aren't directly involved in the production of commodities, but in the production of social reality itself. think of 'production' as in the production of a massive absurdist stage play. Capital is a hegelian critique of classical political economy. few people are familiar with Hegel and David Ricardo nowadays, so it may seem like gibberish, but the key message is : things don't have to be like this.

Why even reply if you admit you don't really know what you're even critizing

>responding to bait

Of course they are. Capitalism is bestalism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_human_nature

Many things are successful, that doesn't mean you have to unconditionally submit to them. I'm sure all people here disagree with some aspects of the contemporary world.

Marx clearly mentions "socially" necessary labor; a labor only becomes social once the commodity is exchanged in the market, it doesn't matter how much time you spend making dirt if it does not become an integral part of the social relations.
>When there are more laborers than there is demand for that labor
it's the other way around user, Marx posits that demand only reallocates labor within the capitalist system, and don't conflate price (exchange-value) with value, that is not what value under Marxism means.

You can safely dismiss anything that isn't wholly scientific and rigourous when it comes to actual applications. Anything that isn't is invariably too simplistic to account for the nuance and complexity of reality.

What you have just said is wholly unscientific and lacks rigor and as such I will safely dismiss it

So we can dismiss all economics

users.wfu.edu/cottrell/eea97.pdf