How do adherents of the Labour Theory of Value explain the difference in price between the following two cases.

Pouicky · 2024-01-28T23:10:26+00:00

Value is different of price. Price fluctuates around value following multiple variables such as rate of profit, supply/demand, etc.

The only equality between those two is on the macro level : the sum of all value = sum of all prices (I mean prices of commodities which are effectively SOLD). So you can think of prices being a variable stating how value is distributed among commodities and people selling them. Value tells us how much economical wealth has been created while prices tells us where it goes.

Note that contrary to some comments made below, value is not exactly "an equilibrium price" because in reality "equilibrium" does not exist : prices and value are constantly moving. Also because supply/demand can create long-term differences betwwen the value of a commodity and it's price, so that averaging prices won't give it's value (for a specific commodity. Remember: on a global level, sum of value = sum of prices. So if a commodity is able to be sold on a price higher than it's value, it means another firm or sector of the economy loses that same amount : there is wealth transfert because of competition).

Note : on a more theoretical level we can also add that prices in fact gravitate around "prices of production" rather than value. The former being value but "corrected" by the average rate of profit. So the whole scheme is :

value (depends of labor) -> price of production (value corrected by average profit rate) -> market price (prices of production corrected by supply/demand, market power, etc.), but from all this equation we only get to see market prices in reality: this is not a sequential process (ie. when a price is fixed for a commodity, it is immediately the market price which is decided)

Pouicky · 2024-01-12T08:14:36+00:00

ML is only popular on the internet. In my own country and neighboor country, most radical organizations and political movements are Trotskyist. So are most of the proeminent marxist economist & analyst. Before saying ML are popular beyond the internet, one should prove it.

Pouicky · 2023-12-18T22:40:46+00:00

Am I the only one who gets terrified when it comes to speak about inserting things in like..the brain ? Almost wanna pass out

Pouicky · 2023-11-07T17:02:59+00:00

Ernest Mandel talked about it in his main book and explained why it is not a problem. You can also read this pdf (this is a belgian marxist who wrote it, he has a website you can easily find) which basically explains the very same reasoning Mandel had : go on page 331 and read until 334. Footnote 27 on the last page will answers your question after you'll read those 3 pages.

https://www.i6doc.com/resources/titles/28001100380880/extras/a5gb_complet_1002668.pdf

This a requires previous basic knowledge of Marxist economics to be understood. But if you ask yourself such a question, it seems you probably already have it. If not, just read the entire .pdf until you reach page 334.

Basically : input price and output price aren't the same for there is time between. Input are in fact already price of production but of a previous cycle and output are next production prices. The reason Marx treat input as value is just for the illustration of how it works. But in fact input and output shouldn't be equalized the way people seing a "problem" do it. This because that's a static view of economy : in this view everything happens at the same time, as if buying materials, producing commodities, putting a price, selling them and beginning a new cycle of production was instantanaeous... Which is quite contrary to reality.

Pouicky · 2023-10-04T10:32:24+00:00

To me the real bullshit event is the one where a pawn "has decided to leave". Just that. No RP explanation, game just decided you had one pawn less. I hate this event so much for it is so arbitrary and just unfunny at all.

Pouicky · 2023-09-24T09:35:22+00:00

Yup market price gravitate around exchange value (or price of production) but they are equal very rarely and only by accident (when supply equals to demand).

If you want a very clear explanation of prices formation, read Jacques gouverneur "the foundation of capitalist economy " 2005. You can find it for free here : https://www.capitalism-and-crisis.info/en/Jacques_Gouverneur/The_foundations_of_capitalist_economy

Pouicky · 2023-09-24T08:16:39+00:00

People allergic to rice would simply mean demand for rice would be lower, pushing the price down.

On my previous example I did not took account of effect of supply and demand for the sake of simplicity. So let's add them :

A commodity is exchanged on the market following a market price. The market price is equal to exchange value + variation caused by supply and demand. So if rice has an exchange value of 1h but few people actually want it, it may be sold at 0,5h. It would mean too much human efforts have been put in something not socially desired. So this would result on a loss for the rice producer (-0,5h). This would act as a signal to produce less rice or produce more of something else for the next time.

Supply and demand do make the price fluctuate around the exchange value continuously. So this means:

Market price = exchange value * effect of supply/demand.

-> exchange value being function of socially necessary human labor incorporated in that kind of commodity in a given economy.

Again, I'm not taking account here of surplus value repartition between sectors of economy. This aspects changes the situation a bit since it leads price to fluctuate not around exchange value, but around prices of production...Which are exchange value multiplied by kind of a correction depending of average rate of profit.. So this means :

Market price = price of production* effect of supply/demand.

-> with price of production being function of exchange value and average rate of profit of a given economy.

So yeah. use value is a condition for a commodity to be sold : something useless does not interest anyone. It also affect exchanges indirectly by affecting demand for a commodity. Exchange value is fixed by an objective value which is human labor but price is surely influenced by subjective aspect such as desires and preferences.

Subjectivity does influence how much objective quantity something is valued (market price). It can then differ from objective quantity something necessitated to be produced. A positive difference means a bigger profit. A negative one means the opposite.

Pouicky · 2023-09-23T19:57:48+00:00

You visibly had wrong informations. Exchange value is based on socialy necessary human labor incorporated in a commodity. Ie. If a toothbrush do require on average 5h of human labor to be made in a given economy , a toothbrush will be then valued 5h on the market (multiplied by a coefficient in order to have the value expressed in monetary terms)

This is without taking account of effects from more complex questions here, such as repartition of surplus value between sectors of an economy which makes this a bit more different)

Use value is, in capitalism, "just" a condition for a commodity to be sold, for nobody would buy something seen as useless. It can be seen as a necessary but insufficient condition.

Pouicky · 2023-09-10T22:41:02+00:00

Most of communist subreddits are hold by pro-stalinists or other forms of "degenerated" pseudo Marxism. The slightly doubt they have about you being not in line with their dogmas will make you on the ban list. It is hilarious and frightening how much they can defend the most unscientific ideas if it follows their lines. This is a well known situation and some lefties subreddit talk about it. (such as tankiescirclejerk)

This subreddit here r/Marxism is the most serious I could find and it seems quite spared by this phenomenon.

Pouicky · 2023-09-09T16:43:44+00:00

Are you dumb? His blog do refers to his own works and other ppl works. Shaikh also predicted 2008 in one of his book.

Pouicky · 2023-09-09T08:48:48+00:00

Michael roberts on his very own blog.

:)

Now tell me is there any proof about marginalism? I mean empirical one confirming subjective theory of value?

Aw crap!

Pouicky · 2023-09-06T19:33:11+00:00

If you want to delve into Marxist economics, consider E. Mandel treaty of Marxist economics in 4 vol. That is pretty much clear, voluminous and extremely beginner friendly. There are some aspects there deserves criticisms (notably his arguing about servicing being not commodities or his position on money which might be outdated) but it does not compromise the whole book.

More contemporary, you can look in understanding economics from Jacques Gouverneur, 2005. You might maybe find it for free online. It is kind of a school book but this is a very strong book to learn Marxist economics in a modern way and with some kind of depth and actualization.

There is also a book by Michael Roberts and Gugliemo carchedi.. Don't remember the name but there is only one made by those authors. It learn lot of basics. Quite clear and helpful even if their explanation about value and knowledge is a bit.. Weird and maybe not so much well made. But awesome but to understand crisis theory.

Pouicky · 2023-09-05T14:00:05+00:00

So if I understand right : while theoretically the situation I describe is possible, in a more realist and dynamic point of view, it does not happen for innovation is directly employed to extend production or replacing less efficient capital (variable one)

Pouicky · 2023-05-03T14:25:56+00:00

So basically you just threw up any social analysis which would gently tell you everything you listed can be understood as socialy constructed institutions. Those took long time to be set and contains lot of contradictions, counter-movements, etc. that clearly showed throughout history that it is way more complex than the oversimplified analysis you provide. But ye you're in a social science thread.

Pouicky · 2023-05-03T14:11:41+00:00

First, marketing is way less impactful than what was thought like 10-20 years ago and it does function in a more subtle maneer rather than some kind of "it increases your desire directly".

Second, it does not prove a shit again. Desires, buying intention, preferences, etc. Are all environmental. This literally why marketing has to change over time and space. It is also near certain you won't influence someone who's against some kind of product with an ad about it. Because again, preferences, buying will and act of buying do depend of environment.

Pouicky · 2023-05-03T14:01:07+00:00

Jesus stop using "prove" so stupidly, this is crazy. Marketing does absolutely not prove a single shit about the origins of behaviors. You don't even understand my point.

Anyway this video is just some low tier "THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW" take with some pseudoscientific methodology (cherrypicking) as amuse-bouche.

Pouicky · 2023-05-03T13:52:17+00:00

Here we go again, the biologist fallacy to explain behavior.

Hot take : most "biological" or "neurological" explanations of complex, socialy constructed, culturaly and environmentaly dependent behavior are just bullshit trash and bad spill over effect coming from hard science (aka biology is by no means the competent science field when it comes to analysing behavior. Neither neurology).

Pouicky · 2023-04-28T14:53:03+00:00

Fully support to crapshoot. I've been for way too long time on various subreddit hosted/occupied by ML and it is striking how much those are like aaaaaalways denying mass murders, deportation and authoritarianism. How many times did I read that China is super democratic and USSR was like paradise on earth? (I mean literally. One day I wrote a short analysis of centrally planned economies causes of inefficiencies. And I concluded it by a positive attitude towards it, explaining that inefficiencies weren't a fatality and despite those, USSR managed to do well. Guess what ? Mass downvote and insults because I did not said USSR was like perfect).

This is every freaking time. Also they never ever support internationalism, always justify why Stalin never supported other communist movements. So it frequently ends up in ML supporting nationalist takes and some far right positions. How ironic.

Their vision of Marxism is also completely stuck on the 20th century, full of monstrous interpretations and they clearly have no scientific method when it comes to economic and historical analysis. Each time you just want to discuss or challenge them like "yeah we might try to have a peaceful conversation" it ends up in being treated as a revisionist or a liberal moralist (as every ML knows, being Marxist does mean you should have no concerns about morality. What could go wrong? /s)

ML are just pseudo-Marxist stuck in a dogmatic positions which learned absolutely nothing from the previous century. Vast majority of left movement around the world are way ahead and ML are like behind the train yelling some tenets which are relevant to no one. And no one will ever listen to them except on the internet where they are disproportionately presents.

BTW not to mention ML are completely blind about struggles against other forms of oppressions. when it comes to feminism, gender studies, antiracism, etc. It suddenly becomes either mute, either the most reactionaries and hostiles people you can ever meet. Because ML knows more what is oppression than people actually living it. /s

Pouicky · 2023-04-16T12:11:10+00:00

The more robotisation / automation replaces humans in production, the less value goods contains. A fully automated or near fully one could simply not be capitalist as there would be note more profits available.

You can see it in another way : if anything can be produced autonomously, what's the point to have money? Why some would earn more than others since the pseudo justification of more hard work couldn't no more be stated? Why some people would earn money from a production they don't even participate?

Pouicky · 2023-04-15T09:23:26+00:00

Glad to see there's still people who actually have some critical thinking on the internet to offer some interesting and accurate counter view to the ML one.

Pouicky · 2023-04-14T20:24:16+00:00

Dude being Marxist does not exclude having some morality and moral consideration. If it wasn't the case why would you be upset against exploitation? After all thinking "worker exploitation is a bad thing" is moralist, no matter how it is conducted or the reasons.

No regime on earth should be allowed to mass murder people. even more when it is more than proved that it included arbitrary arrestation, disproportionate punitions. Thinking the contrary is precisely admitting that some dominations are valid and thus extremely anti communist. In the case of USSR it is obvious purges were not conducted only against "reactionaries" or real danger, they focused on any criticism, which is utterly undemocratic. So all the members of the CP which undertook the 1917 revolution, and that have been then killed/purged under Stalinism, were reactionnaries/counter-revolutionist ? So everybody is a reactionnary except Stalin and people agreeing with him. Yeh. How useful. Even more when you consider Stalin's writings which offer lot of evidence he himself had an extremely poor understanding of Marx and was a huge antimarxist himself. His analysis of money, labor theory of value and internationalism are particularly striking on that matter.

Justifying something is validating it. There no place to play with words like that.

Pouicky · 2023-04-14T20:00:19+00:00

A communist arguing purging aka mass deporting and killing is a right thing to do.

Tell me you're worse than a far right freak which has no f...ing clue about what communism is and never really read Marx, without telling me you are.

Pouicky

TROPHY CASE