Scientifically speaking, a law is a description of a phenomena whereas a theory is an explanation. Marx was pretty big on the whole concept of applying the scientific method to social analysis. And as for the rest of the dumb **** you're hollering about: you wanna give your reasons for thinking that or are you just out to remind me that you don't like marx as if that's news?
I did give reasons and they were irrefutably correct, As usual you simply got embarrassed and tried to launch a persona,l attack. Marx used the word scientifically all the time such as his description of the dialectic view of history but much like his retarded view on value his view on history was ignorant and wrong. He did not apply science in any way at any time he just abused the word to lend his foolish and disgusting views legitimacy. Sorry you do not like your god being called out on what he is but the fact remains he was base evil and any defense or apology or excuse making for what he vomited is a massive failure. The mass murders and purges the deliberately engineered Holodomor, the genocide worse than Hitlers committed many times over in more than one nation. Somehow such a blood drenched philosophy is so noble you get insulted when the facts are pointed out.
"____ was wrong" is part one. i'm asking for part two, where you elaborate on your opinion. i don't know how this could be clearer and i should not have had to simplify things this much to make you understand. i didn't read anything else you said because why would i bother when you clearly aren't bothering
I did bother and you ignored it. I gave clear and irrefutable reasons. Value is not objective it is strictly subjective which your god denies. Because he was a disgusting fool
i'm profoundly bored so i think i'm just going to actually read Das Kapital and paraphrase arguments to you and see where that leads us. Can't it be said that wealth is the state of having accumulated commodities? A commodity is an object that satisfies some kind of want, no matter what kind of want that is. If it is useful, it has a use value. Usefulness is defined by physical properties that have to do with how you use it. Use value is a very important kind of value because it's what exchange value is tied to and it can be immediately used to satisfy human desires. Exchange value is the other major kind of value. Exchange value describes how an item can be traded for other items, it's independent of an item's physical form. Marx then does a shitton of math to explain the process of exchanging a commodity and further explicates on exchange value that I won't bother to go into unless you really want to in order to arrive at "If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour. But even the product of labour itself has undergone a change in our hands. If we make abstraction from its use value, we make abstraction at the same time from the material elements and shapes that make the product a use value; we see in it no longer a table, a house, yarn, or any other useful thing. Its existence as a material thing is put out of sight. Neither can it any longer be regarded as the product of the labour of the joiner, the mason, the spinner, or of any other definite kind of productive labour. Along with the useful qualities of the products themselves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the various kinds of labour embodied in them, and the concrete forms of that labour; there is nothing left but what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract." basically, marx is saying that the way we value things when the marketplace exists forces everything to essentially be valued in reference to how much effort it takes to get it
If value cannot be placed on the labor of another, the entire price system would collapse. Of course it can.
The labor theory of value fails because it ignores the other determinants of value, especially things like entrepreneurial ability.
"This common “something” cannot be either a geometrical, a chemical, or any other natural property of commodities. Such properties claim our attention only in so far as they affect the utility of those commodities, make them use values. But the exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterised by a total abstraction from use value. Then one use value is just as good as another, provided only it be present in sufficient quantity. Or, as old Barbon says, “one sort of wares are as good as another, if the values be equal. There is no difference or distinction in things of equal value ... An hundred pounds’ worth of lead or iron, is of as great value as one hundred pounds’ worth of silver or gold.”[8] As use values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as exchange values they are merely different quantities, and consequently do not contain an atom of use value. If then we leave out of consideration the use value of commodities, they have only one common property left, that of being products of labour. But even the product of labour itself has undergone a change in our hands. If we make abstraction from its use value, we make abstraction at the same time from the material elements and shapes that make the product a use value; we see in it no longer a table, a house, yarn, or any other useful thing. Its existence as a material thing is put out of sight. Neither can it any longer be regarded as the product of the labour of the joiner, the mason, the spinner, or of any other definite kind of productive labour. Along with the useful qualities of the products themselves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the various kinds of labour embodied in them, and the concrete forms of that labour; there is nothing left but what is common to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of labour, human labour in the abstract."
Except one sort of wares isn’t the same as all other similar sorts of wares. That’s why you can’t assume all else is equal except labor. The entire argument underlining Marxian economics is based on a logical fallacy, a false assertion.
The existence of the exchange process means that any use value can be exchanged for any equivalent quantity of use value. Marx proves mathematically that within the context of a marketplace value is entirely abstracted from the physical form of an object.
His mathematical proofs rely on assertions that are not true, like his assertion that products and commodities are not differentiated. They are.
But you can exchange them. You can swap them out. There is therefore an abstract way of quantifying the value of an object that runs common to all commodities.
You can’t always swap them out. You try to swap out a commodity like oil from Saudi Arabia for oil from Venezuela in a refinery and tell me if you get the same stuff. You’ll probably get a bunch of broken, expensive to replace machinery.
It’s not the capital. The commodities themselves are different. The chemistry of crude oil from Saudi Arabia and crude oil from Venezuela are not the same. The claim that Marx made that all commodities are identical and interchangeable is false.
Ah, I thought you were making some point about the refinement process. Consider the fact that you can trade Saudi Arabian oil for Venezuelan oil, through some process of steps or another. It won't be a one to one ratio, but you can still convert one into cash and then into the other. This applies to all commodities. In a marketplace, a commodity has exchange value relative to all other commodities. We call the common factor uniting these trade ratios Exchange Value.
It didn't work for the Soviets (iron fists and jackboots are the only reason the collapse didn't happen sooner), how the hell would it work for anyone else?
Those in charge of academics are moving as quickly as possible toward a Scandinavian style economy. Sorry Soviet lovers.
You are laboring under the delusion of the labor theory of value. When robots are producing all the valuable items there will be no labor involved. The true source of value is information, knowing what to build and how to build it.
Yeah, the social parasites are moving towards Scandinavia too. To get free things and welfare from the state. Bummer, eh?
What people don't realize is that "Labour theory of value" is just an eloquent way to say "pain-in-the-ass theory of value". The more difficult something is to get, the more valuable it is.
