Ltv

[trivas7]

Why doesn't the simple fact that labor hours, or more generally, the cost of production, cannot establish an objective standard by which to determine prices demolish the labor theory of value?

[#FF0000]

Why doesn't the simple fact that labor hours, or more generally, the cost of production, cannot establish an objective standard by which to determine prices demolish the labor theory of value?

Because value isn't the same as price.

[L.A.P.]

Because value isn't the same as price.

[trivas7]

Because value isn't the same as price.

What is value? This is a circular argument AFAIK.

[#FF0000]

What is value? This a circular argument AFAIK.

Value in this context is the amount of labor required to produce a thing.

[trivas7]

Value in this context is the amount of labor required to produce a thing.

Exactly why this is a circular argument.

[#FF0000]

Exactly why this is a circular argument.

Er, why? Can you explain?

[trivas7]

Er, why? Can you explain?

You're saying that the amount of labor required to produce a thing is the objective standard by which labor hours are valorized.

[#FF0000]

You're saying that the amount of labor required to produce a thing is the objective standard by which labor hours are valorized.

I don't know what this means.

[RGacky3]

What trivas is trying to say is that your arguing the Labor of theory can predict value because you define value as being the amount of labor being used to produce something.

The thing is Trivas thats not what the LTOV is all about, when it comes to value he's talking about percieved value, for example micro chips and apples, now obviously supply demand, use value and all of that stuff goes into the price, however percieved value also has to do with the labor put into the product.

The LTOV is much more complicated than just "amount of work in = value," its not just that, I'm no expert Marxist, I'm sure there are others here much more well versed in the theory that could educate you in it.

[Broletariat]

I'm going to quote Zanthorus because I love this quote.

"The idea that labour is the substance of value comes out more clearly when we examine the historical preconditions for the existence of value relations. For individuals to produce exchange-values, the products they produce must be use-values not to themselves but to other individuals, that is, social use-values. Labour which creates social use-values is social labour, and presupposes a social division of labour which forces individuals to rely on the production of society to satisfy their needs. However, only in certain instances of the social division of labour do the products of society appear as exchangeable values. These instances are where the various branches of the social division of labour carry out production independently of one another and for private account. In such instances, the products of labour become social through the medium of the value-form. Value serves as the substance which undertakes the natural necessity common to every society of apportioning out the labour-time of society to different branches of production in order to serve social wants. As the medium through which labour becomes social labour, we can see clearly that the essence of value is labour. In fact, to say that the substance of value becomes a tautology, which is equivalent to saying that the substance of social labour is social labour."

[trivas7]

I'm going to quote Zanthorus because I love this quote.

"The idea that labour is the substance of value comes out more clearly when we examine the historical preconditions for the existence of value relations". [...]

I don't know what this means.

[Broletariat]

I don't know what this means.

Value hasn't always existed, so Zanthorus was saying we need to examine what conditions caused Value to exist.

[trivas7]

Value hasn't always existed, so Zanthorus was saying we need to examine what conditions caused Value to exist.

How is this pertinent to my question? The para you quote seems to be saying that, yes, indeed, the LTV is a tautological proposition.

[Broletariat]

How is this pertinent to my question? The para you quote seems to be saying that, yes, indeed, the LTV is a tautological proposition.

Now all you need to do is understand that price is proportional to value.

[RGacky3]

value as in percieved value, i.e. what you are SELLING when you label a price (whether or not that price is preportionate), its the labor, thats the value that your selling, the actual price has that involved but also different market aspects. However no one is valuing based on those market aspects.

(If I'm out of line here, hard core Marxists can let me know where I'm wrong).

[trivas7]

value as in percieved value, i.e. what you are SELLING when you label a price (whether or not that price is preportionate), its the labor, thats the value that your selling, the actual price has that involved but also different market aspects. However no one is valuing based on those market aspects.

Nope; your selling a commodity, not its valorization.

Now all you need to do is understand that price is proportional to value.

You've lost me.

[Broletariat]

You've lost me.

The reason value exists is in order to distribute the labour of society across society where it is needed. This is done through a money-commodity which establishes a price. Price is directly proportional to value. Commodities which have a higher value have a higher price.

[trivas7]

T[...]Price is directly proportional to value. Commodities which have a higher value have a higher price.

If this were the case price-setting would be trivial; but once out the door, the market sets prices of commodities, not some abstract proportion. There is no quantifiable abstract labor which acts as an objective standard to determine prices.

[RGacky3]

Nope; your selling a commodity, not its valorization.

Your selling a commodity, however the excess value in the commodity is labor. People pay above the price of the raw materials because its supposed to represent the labor that was involved.