What the fuck does he mean by value? I realize its not the strawman meme that is pushed by marginalists...

When supply and demand are at an equilibrium, the exchange value mirrors the socially necessary labour time, i.e. the "true" value of a good without external forces. Marx's point is that, at least in very competitive industries that make reproducible goods, the prices will oscillate around these values. He isn't an ancap, but a free market yields results, both economic and social, that fit into Marx's predictions far more than a highly regulated one. But, as we have seen in recent history, well-intentioned gains made by the working class to restrict the devastating consequences of free market capitalism with socdem welfare reformism eventually get countered by bourgeois interests and fail - which is part of the reasons Marx was a revolutionary advocate of a new mode of production instead of a redistributive reformist.

the are times in which the price is even lower than equilibrium.
Example: Youtube and Twitter, they are bleeding money, they aren't profitable services, and yet the owners/shareholders bankroll them because they expect them to become profitable eventually, which might never happen.

Or like when Rockefeller sold oil at way below value in order to root out upcoming competition, running severe deficits.

Is there a lit group reading of Capital for 2018?would someone organize one?

I wouldn't want to deal with the headache tbqh. Kapital isn't the first book you should read by him either.

witch is not true. value has less to do with labor and more with people actively evaluating something. so it does not matter how much someone worked into something, the amount of time and effort is not necessarily going to make the final product worth more.

Value is not just how much people "actively evaluate", it is a social relation. The demand for something is only less than half of the factors deciding the price of something.
Demand isn't just some abstract "want" either, it relates directly to the productive process.
>it does not matter how much someone worked into something, the amount of time and effort is not necessarily going to make the final product worth more
literally who denies this?

Marx' Labor Theory of Value isn't a theory of price formation, it's a theory of social relationships. Read Isaak Rubin. It's not about paying workers for the 'real' value of their work, but about creating a world in which human creative activity(labor in the broadest sense) is directed towards aims other than production for exchange and capitalist accumulation.

Marx' theory of Commodity Fetishism is essential for the labor theory of value. Things in themselves don't have value, fetishism makes social relationships between people appear as material relationships between things, but in reality human input is needed every step of the way. The world you see around you is a product of alienated human labor, 'automation' is really formal subsumption, the transformation of productive processes to maximise the return to capital. The machines that replace workers are themselves composed of congealed dead labor, they were designed and built by a human somewhere. Our post industrial, post fordist reality is a make work world of service industry busywork, it needs consumerism and waste to sustain itself. Social Media and the internet represent the opening up of new realms for exploitation, your consciousness is now remodelled to fit the needs of capital, bombarded with senseless images.

thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/isaak-rubin-essays-on-marxs-theory-of-value.pdf

>Kapital isn't the first book you should read by him either.
What is, German Ideology? Brumaire?

The key concept is socially necessary labor time
youtube.com/watch?v=UltE6U4t8Vc
youtube.com/watch?v=Ujk7T3hjUY0

Thesis on Fauerbach

Economics post marginalist revolution starts out from the atomistic perspective of the utility maximising unit, Robinson Crusoe in his island, and uses it to model the rest of the economy (and everything else, since microeconomics has a penchant for imperial expansion) while marxism takes a holistic perspective, continuing and critiquing the tradition of classical political economy that flourished before the marginal revolution. The utility maximising unit is in reality a social product, which wasn't the norm throughout most of human history. Accepting it as the be all end all of human nature has tremendous political and social implications, the disintegration of the family unit, social atomisation, the obsolescence of politics and ultimately the disintegration of the subject itself.

They want to create a world without social value of a commodity (your definition of exchange value)? What the fuck does that even mean? Commodities will always have social value regardless of the economic system.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

It basically means abolishing the market and producing things according to a social plan, without the mediation of exchange. Read Towards A New Socialism for a view of viable economic planning.

In the marxist sense of the word a commodity is a product with an exchange value, so in a post-value society there would be no commodities (only products). Marx envisioned a world without commodity production (that is, production for exchange). In this post-value mode of production, labour would be directed directly towards meeting human needs, as opposed to now where human labour is directed towards maximizing profit and only meeting human needs through the market.
In this mode of production labour would be directly social, as opposed to now when for labour to be social it has to enter the market.
If you have read Growth of the Soil, Isak and Inger (and later their children) are working to meet their common needs directly, living off the land they made for themselves, although they supplemented this with market exchange.

>The crucial paradox of this relationship between the social effectivity of the commodity exchange and the 'consciousness' of it is that - to use again a concise formulation by Soth-Rethel - 'this non-knowledge of the reality is part of its very essence' : the social effectivity of the exchange process is a kind of reality which is possible only on condition that the individuals partaking in it are not aware of its proper logic ; that is, a kind of reality whose very ontological consistency implies a certain non-knowledge of its participants - if we come to 'know too much', to pierce the true functioning of social reality, this reality would dissolve itself.
>This is probably the fundamental dimension of ideology: ideology is not simply a 'false consciousness', an illusory representation of reality, it is rather this reality itself which is already to be conceived as 'ideological' - ideological is a social reality whose very existence implies the non-knowledge of its participants as to its essence - that is, the social effectivity, the very reproduction of which implies that the individuals 'do not know what they are doing'.

It's simple really. He is saying that Leon Walras' principle of 'Rarete', or individual pricing based on psychological principles should never have necessarily been applied to mathematics.

He probably resonates more with Carl Menger's treatment of the subject, if at all.

Does that help or do you need to read more?

It's funny how people sometimes talk about Rockefeller like he was the devil or something.

>and companies with a large enough market share can pretty much set whatever price they want
This is such a stupid notion from Marxists.

Any company can set the price at whatever they want. Doesn't mean they will sell a single product at the price they set if consumers view the price as too high, unless we're talking absolute necessities. This is true whether or not you have a high market share.

It's the same reason people would talk about The Vanderbilts or Rothschilds, because these are very influential families with hoards of wealth.

Thank God it's mostly just leftists who view the economy as a zero-sum-game who hate rich people, and who cares about them.

Thank god it's mostly just -insert basic political stance here against either the right or left here- right? Eheheh heh....

How can you honestly feel like you're even a real person.

By leading a nice, good life.

If you have a problem with people who have more money than you, simply because they have more money than you do, you need to seek professional help.

Why? And I'm not saying one should hate people with more money than you, but why can it be said about ANY person that one should seek help to avoid disliking them? Why should passionate feelings be thrown away in favor of apathy? Just because they are negative? I do not think Rockefeller was the devil, but I will keep my right to hate whoever I wish, and I spit at those who tell me to "seek professional help" or "be more positive". I will let myself be a passive idiot who only views people and events with either joy or indifference.
A society devoid of negativity, where it is unnecessary to argue WHY one should cease having negative feelings towards a particular person, where one only needs to appeal to the universally accepted truth that anger is bad, would be a nightmare.

Hey, if you want to be a brooding bitch, be my guest. Who am I to deny you your right to be that? I'm simply saying that it seems stupid beyond words to hate another for the sole reason that they have more money than you, not to mention a waste of energy, energy that could be spend more productively to actually improve your life.

I have no problem. I simply replied to you telling you why these families in particular are paid attention to more than others.

It's how the world is right now. You're right it doesn't always have to be this simple. And it won't. I'm just saying, those families have a lot of power. Once we do something about this inheritance problem, we're good.

Commodity exchange was the exception rather than the norm throughout most of human history. Markets laid at the fringes, rather than at the center of society, man was not defined as a self sufficient utility maximiser, but as an animal with the ability to keep and make promises. It's funny how conservatives deify the market while disregarding the role it has played in the disintegration of traditional social structures. Once you embrace atomised liberal individualism, you can say goodbye to the family, national cultures, alternative models of morality, privacy, etc. etc.

American conservative discourse amounts to muh hippies bad, let's go back to a romanticised mid century america that has been rendered impossible by changing economic conditions.

''the economy'' is a runaway cybernetic system, it is the advocates of capitalism who view it as a secularised god substitute which rewards 'hard work'

He means GIVE ME FREE SHIT LMAO

I'm glad I dropped liberal ideology and the whole idea that being a worker in a modern economy contributes anything to society at all. There's no exit from this ride, drain the system for all you can and expend the least possible effort on work.
I comfort myself with knowing that people living in pre-revolutionary conditions will have a much shittier time than we do.
They haven't managed to fully install neoliberal programs in my country yet, we still have decent public services.

>be nice
>DUN JUJJ MEH UH DOO WUT UH WON

'Value-in-process' is the key to understanding his meaning. I don't think there's any other book that explains it better than this:
marxists.org/archive/camatte/capcom/camatte-capcom.pdf
And the author is one of the major underground critics of Leftism, and in many ways critical of Marxism itself. (Although I think he falls into similar traps, still one of the few on the Left that I respect.)

I don’t think Marx would agree. Value is more like a moment or a group of moments taken out of the cycles of production, (distribution) consumption, circulation, exchange. Consumption is a good in Marx, in that the use value, the particular function of the good, what pleasure it serves, is realized from the virtual realm. The main contention of Marx and employers was the extraction of surplus from workers — surplus value, which is the time above the time it takes in man-hours to meet costs.

>The main contention of Marx and employers was the extraction of surplus from workers — surplus value, which is the time above the time it takes in man-hours to meet costs.

Marx in fact contested this notion in his critique of the Gotha Programme.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

>In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Communism isn't about redistributing the wealth;
>Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?