The labor theory of value is correct

>i am too unintelligent to understand a simplified economic model
sorry

oh look, another non-argument

Could this thread move to /pol/? It would improve the quality of that board.

>I had to trade labor to purchase

You didn't HAVE TO, you HAPPENED TO. You could have just as easily robbed them or found a lottery ticket or have a friend give them to you

it is technically correct yes, but exchange rules prices and thus rules wages

I bought 4 bags of Japanese peanuts, 2 bags of extra large Cheetos puff corn and a miller high life for 3000 calories for 9 dollars or I bought a fancy vegan soy plate in Soho while hanging out with my fellow revolucionares for 25 dollars with 300 calories

>a simplified economic model
Who gives a fuck about those outside of high school?

Exchange cannot even take place if objects have objective value.

enjoy yourself, man

That's not true, though.

Ah, someone reasonable. Productivity functions are as nebulous as utility functions. Likewise, transaction do not take place on a universal exchange. No matter how obfuscated, though, the value of an object comes from the labor imbued within it.

I can tell you two are not very smart. Please refrain from posting, as you are out of your depth.

Have you ever heard of a utility function?

It is, otherwise what motivation would anyone have to part with anything?

>utility function isn't value

Because other objects have objective value as well.

>Disagree with me? Haha, your argument doesn't count

Cool story bro

He's clearly a plebbitor, don't give him his delicious yoose.

Doesn't matter, if they're equally valuable what would be the point in exchanging them?

You need calories just as much as you need water. If you only have dry food with calories, you would trade some for water

two objects with the same exchange value can be worth more or less to a person with respect to their use-value

Oh so what you're saying is that sometimes water can be more valuable than food to me but not to other people

Water and food are always useful. You won't give up one for the other, you'll try to have both.

Irrelevant
Point is that it is self evident that any exchange is predicated on the compatablity of different subjective valuations from two agents

I agree objects have objective value, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be exchanged if they had. I could have food worth 3x calories, but unable to transport them to my home. You, with a larger car, offer me 2.5x calories for my 3x, as my car can bring the 2.5x calories home.

>I agree objects have objective value
DON'T have, jesus

The practical contingencies of your utilization factor into any valuation

Stop talking about calories like a retard, they're irrelevant

No it's not accurate at all. How and why something is valued is completely culturally bounded.

Oil would be practically worthless if someone never invented the internal combustion engine.

It's precisely for that reason it's retarded to talk about objective value, but you need to understand which way you approach the argument from. If the premise is that objects have objective value, your argument is still moot, since an object can have an objective value as well as additional value stemming from the mentioned practical contingencies.

stop talking about fucking calories bro, u sacrifice calories for taste, its literally up to the consumer what they want to eat and if youre seriously proposing taking that choice away by their weight in fucking calories u truly belong in the ward

This. /pol/, Veeky Forums, maybe even Veeky Forums, it does not belong here in any case.

>since an object can have an objective value as well as additional value stemming from the mentioned practical contingencies.

Wrong, its all the one value i.e. the fucking price you pay for it

Read , dumbass. The premise for this line of discussion is that objects have objective value, not how it is determined.
As I just told this other guy, the premise for the discussion is IF objects have objective value.

>its literally up to the consumer what they want to eat
missing the point, the question is whether it's "literally" up to the consumer whether they want to eat at all

As someone who has had to sit through six economics classes, honestly this thread makes me sick! Good heavens, what is wrong with you people? Different objects have different prices based on the utility or pleasure they provide. For example, a spaceship is expensive because it allows whoever pays for it to go into space, which is a pretty rare thing. Under your pretexes, a spaceship is only worth as much as the greedy capitalists(?) NASA/Musk put into machinery and highly paid engineers and specialists to put it together (???laborers???) is worth as much as a hole the size of a Virginian county which required an equal amount of labor(???)

engineer here, why the fuck are people still talking about certain knowledge? of course it's certain! i have a formula, i enter some numbers, and 99% of times i get a satisfactory answer. what the fuck is wrong with christians?

technology is a bad thing user, it only favors the burgeouise. if we just rely on copying the Cappies advanced technology we can definitely compete

just think: why would you pay a premium for a product that you can fabricate yourself for less.

nobody would pay Musk to go to space if they could build and pilot a rocket themselves for less. what makes a visit to space 'rare' is precisely that it is so costly (in terms of labor).

>Different objects have different prices based on the utility or pleasure they provide.
this is just braindead. you cannot account for price fluctuations with this model. if an orange gives me $1 worth of utility, and the prevailing wage is $10/hr, an orange costs ~6mins of my time. If I can walk down the street and pick an orange in less than 6mins, I'm not going to spend $1 on an orange.

yeah but without spending money on it to further advance technology we will never develop cheaper and easier methods for production. the dream that one day you could buy a ticket to mars isn't that farfetched or far off, maybe 400-500 years

no shit, but what if you live in a place where there are no oranges? that's why they have their value. And they actually are much cheaper in places oranges grow

>When you're so lost inside the downward spiral of capital that you can't conceive life outside of commodity fetishism

Damn, I can't even say anything about this

Yeah dude pre market societies have absolutely no understanding of value

you're missing the point. 'value' is a function of the labor necessary to produce something.

what the fuck are you even talking about? this post is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

And those societies wouldn't disagree with the price notion of value. As per the notion that shit is worth whatever you're willing to give for it

there is no such thing as a pre-market society

This isn't literature. Few understand this.

>The labor theory of value is correct.
It's a good concept, but the marxist notion that you can calculate the amount of socially necessary work hours for any complex job is ridiculous, and -without that- the margin of application of the surplus value calculation falls apart in almost every case.

All anthropological research refutes this

>use-value
>exchange value

>two people can live together in community without exchanging goods
all it takes is one guy gathering berries and the other guy fetching water.

what?

Why make a distinction?

because a use-value is predicated on your own utility function, whereas exchange value is a function of labor.

baka we live in a throw away society and this flippin nibber is talmbout "the labor theory of value is correct"

>implying you can

Just because you consider yourself an oh-so-enlightened Marxist, don't pretend that you don't own an Iphone or a Samsung smartphone, and are shitposting on it at this minute, you hypocrite.

>brainlet

That doesn't explain anything.

Sorry, brainlets need not reply.
Spectate this thread in the future.

OP here, not that guy--I own a flip phone, and your reply is totally irrelevant to the content of this thread.

>accuses other people of suffering from commodity fetishism but conveniently doesn't think he does so himself
>"totally irrelevant to the content of this thread"

Sure thing, hypocrite.

>A apples and B apples are different. A apples come from trees and B apples come from seeds.
>But aren't those the same apples?
>N-no it's different

>is incapable of reading
>posts a gay bill nye react
please, go somewhere else, anywhere else

I'm not OP but, well what kind of fallacy is this? We are all drowned in commodity fetishism, that doesn't mean we can't criticize it. Are you gullible about every fucking thing which goes on with your life? Don't answer that, we probably know the answer.

>Implying it's feasible to live without commodity fetishism when born into a community that idolizes commodity fetishism

Capital is so strong that it has twisted our worldview into classifying all human relationship as financial. If you must define that every exchange is an investment, then absolutely everything is goods, and there's no way we can even talk to each other, you removed every other value ad hoc. We can keep living in this world and the people at the top can never worry about it because most of us are actually defending the accumulation of our capital right up their ass.

>t it has twisted our worldview into classifying all human relationship as financia
The level of projection it requires for a fucking Marxist to say this WEW

>well what kind of fallacy is this? We are all drowned in commodity fetishism, that doesn't mean we can't criticize it.

I never said you couldn't criticize the concept, but using it as an argument against other people is literally arguing in bad faith.

>If you must define that every exchange is an investment, then absolutely everything is goods, and there's no way we can even talk to each other, you removed every other value ad hoc.

What? You're just reducing the argument to nothing because you don't have a valid answer to the problem of exchanging goods being a constant in human societies.

>my phone gives me faith

iphones are proof of God tbqh

No, I'll just annoy you until you explain why you have to make unnecessary distinctions which regards to commodity value.

>doesn't even understand basic philosophical concepts

Makes sense that you're a Marxist now.

I'm not a marxist you fool. Go fling shit somewhere else.

financial does not equal material in the Marxist sense, friend.

OP here, seems like members of this board are too pea-brained to actually discuss economics. Shoehorning your political opinions into the discussion can't mask your lack of brain power.

Nope.

>two objects are built with the same level of labour
>one is a different colour
>people buy the one more that is a different colour
>the price thus for the different coloured one is more expensive, more valuable
>LTV can’t explain this

Then stop butting into a current discussion you fucking brainlet.

Let's say it is Color Y that is more desirable than Color B

People will pay a premium for Color Y, up to the point where the cost of purchasing Color B and repainting it is equal to the benefit of having the object in Color Y.

The fact that they prefer Color Y relates to their personal utility function. Looking from another angle, the 'labor' that went into producing the object in Color B was misspent--i.e. it was relatively less productive.

Your argument, isn't.

You never talk anything but nonsense Algernon!

Stick to lurking if you can't stomach being called out on the bullshit you post, user.

So the value of the object is determined by consumers.

Nope, both objects have the same value of labour put into it, people just want the different coloured one more. It’s not even a question of utility, people just want the one that’s different coloured more. The other coloured one, has less value, because it isn’t valued as much.

In the sense that everyone has a different productivity function, determining the point at which they would be better off producing an object for themselves. You're failing at producing a 'Gotcha'

>It’s not even a question of utility, people just want the one that’s different coloured more.
I'm

Ok, but you still feel the need to posit that there is a seperate value from this which is a function of labor. Why is this necessary?

>There simply is no such thing as value independent of price.
Your life.

/thread nigga
>gtfo

>the value of an object comes from the labor imbued within it

no, the value of an object comes from the price people are willing to pay for it. (see: most luxury goods)

*groans*

so why don't you go mine gold and sell it?

not even Zizek believes in LTV

youtube.com/watch?v=fMjGxg4Dq34

Why the fuck can't you just explain?

The ridiculous irony of Marxism becoming an ideology with this degree of blind adherence is hilarious.

>The labor theory of value is correct.
Few understand this.

What did xir mean by this?

Serious response I'd like to discuss:

Consider a truly useless object, unconditionally useless. As the object is useless, it is valueless (1). But, at least *some* labor was involved in the creation of this object, as no objects exist without labor (2). Therefor it has value per the LTV (3), a contradiction. So one of these assertions must be false.

Assuming you believe the LTV, which of (1) or (2) do you reject? Or do you have a problem with the argument itself?

marx says values are contained in use values, so something that isn't useful for anyone will not have an exchange value.

zizek agrees with marx in this clip, its the vulgar marxists he's arguing against.

it takes L A B O R to mine gold, and someone does it more efficiently than you, otherwise you would just go do it yourself. You would rather sell your own labor at a wage and purchase gold, because that it your U T I L I T Y MA X I M I Z I N G option

>labor theory of value is marxism
*eyeroll*

work isn't inherently valuable. there is such a thing as 'spinning your gears'. there is even work that destroys value. this is not a refutation of the labor theory of value.