Lowtech
19th October 2012, 20:44
there's a self proclaimed evangelist of capitalism on youtube that blasts the LTV with utter garbage, here is my response to him and the subsequent debate. I'm still relatively new to marxism/communism so i am open to critique from the left (how better could i have made my responses? how would you respond instead?) as well as challenges from capitalists.. enjoy
i said..
the problem with this guy is that he simplifies "use value" down to utility. yes well, this is false, commodities do have an economic value based on usefulness, this usefulness is calculated not only based on the final products usability but also by how well the commodity is produced, if so much effort/resources/time is expended in making the commodity that it's usefulness is reduced mathematically, it is a wasteful commodity
how the entrepreneur FEELS about economics does not dictate its physical processes. somehow capitalists believe their opinion of economics and their condescension of other human beings somehow gives economic validation to retention of value. essentially, giving justification to consuming more than one produces and subjugating others in the process.
the plutocratic class reduces the scarcity they experience by increasing scarcity for everyone else. this transfer of value is what i refer to as the 'profit mechanism'. essentially, selling commodities above production cost and underpaying workers. the plutocratic class consumes more than it produces and this is economically invalid, no matter the garbage capitalists try to pass on to validate 20% people hoarding 80% of value produced by everyone else.
the entrepreneur's role is an abstract. he alienates the worker from the "organizational" process to manufacture "consent" to subjugation via an implied "practical hierarchy" that in reality is not economically practical at all, rather it is a means for the entrepreneur to retain value he has not produced himself.
you cannot refute that workers are underpaid, as you must pay them less than the value of their labor for it to be profitable
his response:
I already did refute that fact, because you cannot prove that their labour has an objective value.
Actually you can only pay them what you can afford to pay them. Think of profit is the entrepreneur's wage. Are you suggesting that he should go without his earnings?
The engineer's work is also abstract, but don't accept workers to build a car without blueprints. More importantly the worker cannot possibly know whether building a car is a good idea.
Everything you're saying is based on the presumption that the LTV is true. You're not actually trying to prove it to be true. I already refuted the LTV in the entire video, and unless you attempt to address that, your pontifications are meaningless. My response:
-the entrepreneur is not an engineer. his source of profit is a product produced directly of labor power; he extorts value produced by labor.
-assuming workers won't know if building a car is a good idea is to imply inferiority; rather they are alienated from the organizational process
-the entrepreneur produces nothing, what he extorts is not a wage.
-'Everything you're saying is based on the presumption that the LTV is true' - if nothing else, i enjoy your elegant deflection of these facts.
'you cannot prove that their labour has an objective value.' regardless of how cut and dry one may measure a resource does not negate it's tangibility. nor does it remove ones responsibility to proper participation; refraining from extorting value from others. rather than being scientific, your entire facade is produced to protect the fallacy that extorting value has some sort of magical practicality.
is the LTV that significant to you that you prefer turning reality on it's head to falsify it? pointing things back into perspective, capitalism contends most people cannot organize themselves efficiently, therefore in the mind of a capitalist, they must allow themselves to be subjugated in exchange for plutocratic benevolence, allowing the rich to consume more than it produces. you're advocating subjugation, not an economic system.
labour can be given an objective value
looking at specific social need per individual, extruding the amount of commodities required to meet need, calculating labour + resource req for 1 unit of commodity
this gives a very minute value per commodity per worker, yet accurate. however, if the economy, as an infrastructure, makes sure that total of skill sets and total of labour contributed is sufficient to support a civilization as a whole, metering labour with a specific measurement is not necessary (and the issue is moot).
i said..
the problem with this guy is that he simplifies "use value" down to utility. yes well, this is false, commodities do have an economic value based on usefulness, this usefulness is calculated not only based on the final products usability but also by how well the commodity is produced, if so much effort/resources/time is expended in making the commodity that it's usefulness is reduced mathematically, it is a wasteful commodity
how the entrepreneur FEELS about economics does not dictate its physical processes. somehow capitalists believe their opinion of economics and their condescension of other human beings somehow gives economic validation to retention of value. essentially, giving justification to consuming more than one produces and subjugating others in the process.
the plutocratic class reduces the scarcity they experience by increasing scarcity for everyone else. this transfer of value is what i refer to as the 'profit mechanism'. essentially, selling commodities above production cost and underpaying workers. the plutocratic class consumes more than it produces and this is economically invalid, no matter the garbage capitalists try to pass on to validate 20% people hoarding 80% of value produced by everyone else.
the entrepreneur's role is an abstract. he alienates the worker from the "organizational" process to manufacture "consent" to subjugation via an implied "practical hierarchy" that in reality is not economically practical at all, rather it is a means for the entrepreneur to retain value he has not produced himself.
you cannot refute that workers are underpaid, as you must pay them less than the value of their labor for it to be profitable
his response:
I already did refute that fact, because you cannot prove that their labour has an objective value.
Actually you can only pay them what you can afford to pay them. Think of profit is the entrepreneur's wage. Are you suggesting that he should go without his earnings?
The engineer's work is also abstract, but don't accept workers to build a car without blueprints. More importantly the worker cannot possibly know whether building a car is a good idea.
Everything you're saying is based on the presumption that the LTV is true. You're not actually trying to prove it to be true. I already refuted the LTV in the entire video, and unless you attempt to address that, your pontifications are meaningless. My response:
-the entrepreneur is not an engineer. his source of profit is a product produced directly of labor power; he extorts value produced by labor.
-assuming workers won't know if building a car is a good idea is to imply inferiority; rather they are alienated from the organizational process
-the entrepreneur produces nothing, what he extorts is not a wage.
-'Everything you're saying is based on the presumption that the LTV is true' - if nothing else, i enjoy your elegant deflection of these facts.
'you cannot prove that their labour has an objective value.' regardless of how cut and dry one may measure a resource does not negate it's tangibility. nor does it remove ones responsibility to proper participation; refraining from extorting value from others. rather than being scientific, your entire facade is produced to protect the fallacy that extorting value has some sort of magical practicality.
is the LTV that significant to you that you prefer turning reality on it's head to falsify it? pointing things back into perspective, capitalism contends most people cannot organize themselves efficiently, therefore in the mind of a capitalist, they must allow themselves to be subjugated in exchange for plutocratic benevolence, allowing the rich to consume more than it produces. you're advocating subjugation, not an economic system.
labour can be given an objective value
looking at specific social need per individual, extruding the amount of commodities required to meet need, calculating labour + resource req for 1 unit of commodity
this gives a very minute value per commodity per worker, yet accurate. however, if the economy, as an infrastructure, makes sure that total of skill sets and total of labour contributed is sufficient to support a civilization as a whole, metering labour with a specific measurement is not necessary (and the issue is moot).