Reminder that while the labour theory of value can be practical to understand certain aspects of society, it is still culturally biased and not “objectively” true.
What creates value can only be answered in a cultural framework.
Yeah but the way you said made it seem that value (exchange value according to Marx) is determined by cultural factors, thus making it untrue. The debate around labour theory of value have existed since the 19th century.
I was talking about the theory, not value. Sorry if that didn’t come across.
Now that I think about it: isn’t value culturally determined in many things? Why are apple products more expensive than other computers with the same specs? Why is a ticket to a Billie Eilish concert more valuable than one to my neighbor’s indie rock band?
isn’t value culturally determined in many things? Why are apple products more expensive than other computers with the same specs? Why is a ticket to a Billie Eilish concert more valuable than one to my neighbor’s indie rock band?
It really seems like you’re conflating ‘value’ and ‘price’ here.
As far as I understand: Price tries to measure value. Therefore: A price needs a value, but value doesn’t need price. They correlate but are not the same.
A reminder that the labour theory of value is not a marxist concept. When people wave their hands around and say “labor theory of value isn’t objectively true!!”, they’re shadowboxing a ghost.
Sorry, I interpreted it as aggressive. Figuring out tone in text form is hard and all that. Sorry that I wrongly accused you.
Things I didn’t get:
A reminder that the labour theory of value is not a marxist concept.
Marx hasn’t been explicity brought up yet (at least not in my comment). Only implicitly in the original post. Again: thought you were attacking me and was like “umm… So what?”
When people wave their hands around and say “labor theory of value isn’t objectively true!!”, they’re shadowboxing a ghost.
I thought you meant me, since that was what I was basically saying. 😅
Value != price
Now, that one wasn’t even implicitly mentioned.
I hope you don’t hold my misunderstanding against me.
I was certainly being critical, though it was unclear by your phrasing if you were saying what I thought you were. That’s why I was using passive language.
Marx hasn’t been explicity brought up yet
True enough, but I assume the implicit connection your comment was making to the op was the reference to “your stolen labour value”, which would be a marxist concept, and “labor theory of value” is commonly misused as a counterargument against marx’s central critique of stolen surplus labor. Feel free clarify if I got that wrong.
“Value != price”
Now, that one wasn’t even implicitly mentioned.
Well now i’m confused. If ‘labor theory of value isn’t objectively true’ isn’t making an argument about the price of a commodity not being equal to the labor it embodies, I am not sure what you’re trying to say by it.
Well now i’m confused. If ‘labor theory of value isn’t objectively true’ isn’t making an argument about the price of a commodity not being equal to the labor it embodies, I am not sure what you’re trying to say by it.
A theory o value doesn’t necessarily say anything about price. As you said: “value != price”.
It’s an economic theory and therefore more to be understood as a model on how economics work.
The natural sciences have a hard core. The theory of gravity depends on how matter interacts in an objective, physical framework. Economic theories basically describe human interaction which are based on psychology and sociology. Therefore they depend on the societal context they are made in.
If you understand them as models that are tools on how to understand the world, they become more useful in political analysis (I know we are in a meme community here, but everything is politics and so on and so on…).
I do subscribe to many conclusions the labour theory of value and especially Marx came to. But I want y’all to remember that the theory is a mere tool for understanding and not a sacred, holy theory.
There’s not even academical consensus what value actually is, AFAIK. Do preasts add value to anything with their labour? If not: Do social counsellors? What if a priest acts as a counsellor? Ask different economists with their theories of value and you’ll get several answers.
Economic theories aren’t as rigid as theories from the natural sciences or mathematics. They are dependent on the culture in which they are perceived. A non-capitalist society would have different theories or value (or none at all) than we do.
I actually watch Unlearning Economics, though only his video essays and not his streams. It’s been a while since I’ve seen this one.
So what we’re meaning is how much of Western culture undervalues care-giving since it produces no product, so stay at home moms, nannies, therapists, etc.
I thought of another example. In more nomadic and naturalist cultures, actually doing things to the environment destroys value, while leaving it be and allowing it to recover creates value. That is something else that is not accounted for in any theory of value to my knowledge.
An example would be American Indians in their dependance on foraging and hunting. I think that gives creedance to the idea that they thanked the things they harvested/hunted (I don’t know the factuality of that), since from their perspective they were only a burden that the ecosystem was ‘kind’ enough to support.
Thank you for that comment. I feel like finally someone understood what I was trying to get across.
Probably formulated it badly, but still: the answers are a bit exhausting.
EDIT: Thought of another example of your qase where harming nature decreases value. Having to buy carbon certificates for releasing CO2 models the destruction of value by polluting the environment.
LTV is about the value contribution of labour to the production of commodities, ultimately reducible to the subsistence requirements of that labour. It’s entirely from the supply side and can be thought of as embodied labour. I’ve had a very tiring day at work so won’t go into more detail now, but LTV doesn’t address perceived utility or demand side “contributions” to value as they are not materially grounded.
But labour’s contribution to value and - crucially - the irreducible subsistence requirements of that labour provide the only materially grounded analysis. They are not culturally bound, that’s the strength of LTV.
It provides a materialist foundation for further analyses that would otherwise be absent. It’s extremely useful for the precise reason that it is objectively true, while demand side economic models are ideologically based.
An LTV analysis begins with such workers because they are the original contributors of surplus value that is appropriated by the ownership class.
I recommend reading about it in more detail if you’re interested, I’m not certain but I think it is addressed in Chapter 6 of Capital 1. I don’t mean to be rude but I really did have a tiring day at work and you seem to be clutching at straws a little with some of your comments.
An LTV analysis begins with such workers because they are the original contributors of surplus value that is appropriated by the ownership class.
And what’s that reasoning, if not based on ideology?
I really suggest watching unlearning egonomics video on the matter. I’m a leftist and mostly agree with Marx, but the LTV is a model and should be treated as such.
Reminder that while the labour theory of value can be practical to understand certain aspects of society, it is still culturally biased and not “objectively” true.
What creates value can only be answered in a cultural framework.
How is it culturally biased? It’s a theory of how exchange value functions within capitalism
You’re right. It’s one theory. There is however ongoing debate on which theory is “correct”.
This vid explains it quite well and with Simpsons clips so the hour of video is bearable:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z2LCNAVfMw
Yeah but the way you said made it seem that value (exchange value according to Marx) is determined by cultural factors, thus making it untrue. The debate around labour theory of value have existed since the 19th century.
I was talking about the theory, not value. Sorry if that didn’t come across.
Now that I think about it: isn’t value culturally determined in many things? Why are apple products more expensive than other computers with the same specs? Why is a ticket to a Billie Eilish concert more valuable than one to my neighbor’s indie rock band?
There is a difference between use value and exchange value
It really seems like you’re conflating ‘value’ and ‘price’ here.
Don’t the two correlate?
What a mess we’ve made.
As far as I understand: Price tries to measure value. Therefore: A price needs a value, but value doesn’t need price. They correlate but are not the same.
Were am I making the mistake? Genuine question.
deleted by creator
What problem?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=8Z2LCNAVfMw
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Shut up! I’m already watching on Newpipe :p
A reminder that the labour theory of value is not a marxist concept. When people wave their hands around and say “labor theory of value isn’t objectively true!!”, they’re shadowboxing a ghost.
Value != price
Umm… Thanks for that unnecessarily aggressive seeming and a bit incompehensible addendum, I guess?
I think it’s more assertive than aggressive.
What part of my response did you find incomprehensible?
Sorry, I interpreted it as aggressive. Figuring out tone in text form is hard and all that. Sorry that I wrongly accused you.
Things I didn’t get:
Marx hasn’t been explicity brought up yet (at least not in my comment). Only implicitly in the original post. Again: thought you were attacking me and was like “umm… So what?”
I thought you meant me, since that was what I was basically saying. 😅
Now, that one wasn’t even implicitly mentioned.
I hope you don’t hold my misunderstanding against me.
I was certainly being critical, though it was unclear by your phrasing if you were saying what I thought you were. That’s why I was using passive language.
True enough, but I assume the implicit connection your comment was making to the op was the reference to “your stolen labour value”, which would be a marxist concept, and “labor theory of value” is commonly misused as a counterargument against marx’s central critique of stolen surplus labor. Feel free clarify if I got that wrong.
Well now i’m confused. If ‘labor theory of value isn’t objectively true’ isn’t making an argument about the price of a commodity not being equal to the labor it embodies, I am not sure what you’re trying to say by it.
A theory o value doesn’t necessarily say anything about price. As you said: “value != price”.
Then what do you mean by “the labor theory of value is not objectively true”?
It’s an economic theory and therefore more to be understood as a model on how economics work.
The natural sciences have a hard core. The theory of gravity depends on how matter interacts in an objective, physical framework. Economic theories basically describe human interaction which are based on psychology and sociology. Therefore they depend on the societal context they are made in.
If you understand them as models that are tools on how to understand the world, they become more useful in political analysis (I know we are in a meme community here, but everything is politics and so on and so on…).
I do subscribe to many conclusions the labour theory of value and especially Marx came to. But I want y’all to remember that the theory is a mere tool for understanding and not a sacred, holy theory.
I’m not following what you specifically mean.
Could you provide an example of when the theory fails due to a culture’s differing views of value?
There’s not even academical consensus what value actually is, AFAIK. Do preasts add value to anything with their labour? If not: Do social counsellors? What if a priest acts as a counsellor? Ask different economists with their theories of value and you’ll get several answers.
Economic theories aren’t as rigid as theories from the natural sciences or mathematics. They are dependent on the culture in which they are perceived. A non-capitalist society would have different theories or value (or none at all) than we do.
This guy can explain it properly, I’m not an economist and kinda regret making that comment.
I actually watch Unlearning Economics, though only his video essays and not his streams. It’s been a while since I’ve seen this one.
So what we’re meaning is how much of Western culture undervalues care-giving since it produces no product, so stay at home moms, nannies, therapists, etc.
I thought of another example. In more nomadic and naturalist cultures, actually doing things to the environment destroys value, while leaving it be and allowing it to recover creates value. That is something else that is not accounted for in any theory of value to my knowledge.
An example would be American Indians in their dependance on foraging and hunting. I think that gives creedance to the idea that they thanked the things they harvested/hunted (I don’t know the factuality of that), since from their perspective they were only a burden that the ecosystem was ‘kind’ enough to support.
Thank you for that comment. I feel like finally someone understood what I was trying to get across.
Probably formulated it badly, but still: the answers are a bit exhausting.
EDIT: Thought of another example of your qase where harming nature decreases value. Having to buy carbon certificates for releasing CO2 models the destruction of value by polluting the environment.
Caregivers may not produce a product but they provide a service.
We have no issues with the plumber providing you a service and getting paid well for it, I don’t know why we have such a hard time with caregivers… :(
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
This guy can explain it properly
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
But I have moved 8 tons of dirt from location A to location B. Who else is going to do it? I deserve compensation for my task.
You’re conflating value and utility.
Where?
LTV is about the value contribution of labour to the production of commodities, ultimately reducible to the subsistence requirements of that labour. It’s entirely from the supply side and can be thought of as embodied labour. I’ve had a very tiring day at work so won’t go into more detail now, but LTV doesn’t address perceived utility or demand side “contributions” to value as they are not materially grounded.
I wouldn’t have been able to write it this consise, but that’s kind of one thing I wanted to point towards in my original comment.
But labour’s contribution to value and - crucially - the irreducible subsistence requirements of that labour provide the only materially grounded analysis. They are not culturally bound, that’s the strength of LTV.
Doesn’t that only take the economics of people into account that are close to this irreducible subsistence requirement?
It provides a materialist foundation for further analyses that would otherwise be absent. It’s extremely useful for the precise reason that it is objectively true, while demand side economic models are ideologically based.
An LTV analysis begins with such workers because they are the original contributors of surplus value that is appropriated by the ownership class.
I recommend reading about it in more detail if you’re interested, I’m not certain but I think it is addressed in Chapter 6 of Capital 1. I don’t mean to be rude but I really did have a tiring day at work and you seem to be clutching at straws a little with some of your comments.
And what’s that reasoning, if not based on ideology?
I really suggest watching unlearning egonomics video on the matter. I’m a leftist and mostly agree with Marx, but the LTV is a model and should be treated as such.