How come Marx who invented something called the "labour theory of value" literally never considered hat if you dig a whole for 10 hours it isn't worth 10 hours of labour??? It's such an obvious problem but he never considered it. Was he autistic?
How come Marx who invented something called the "labour theory of value" literally never considered hat if you dig a whole for 10 hours it i...
What is the hour of labor anyway? I bet it was problematic concept for him all things considered. One thing for sure thoe is that corpo loves him and his time tables for everything that people do.
>i have no clue what he said i just know it's le bad
I've worked in corpo and higher ups were all about marx style of efficiency and how long certain tasks take to finish. "Oh in other place people did the stuff you do in 2hrs far quicker so unless you do better you are out this job(hours of labour to get commodities).
Because he is an idiot. Literally that simple.
I agree that if you are fat and moronic and want to pretend that money isn't a concept that exists in the world it's really confusing
Save up a month's supply of the insulin mommy injects into your bum-bum and slam it all at once straight into your jugular
I've never heard of any business owner or financial advisor ever use the the word "labor theory of value" or anything like it in real life.
Its almost like the only people who care about it are unemployed bums like Marx.
Its just so strange no Marxoid is every able to show why their ideas matter or apply to the real world.
Its just always some cope wall of cope to justify their worthless 70K liberal arts degree that got them working at starbucks.
What are you even talking about?
Every single business consultant always focuses on reducing labor costs and minimizing labor power when they're contacted for assistance.
Wage depression is the central strategy for many businesses to increase profit margins.
>I've never heard of any business owner or financial advisor ever use the the word "labor theory of value" or anything like it in real life.
>I've never heard of any astrologer or haruspex ever use the terminology of chiromancy.
You don't say.
https://aeon.co/essays/how-economists-rode-maths-to-become-our-era-s-astrologers
>I've never heard of any business owner or financial advisor ever use the the word "labor theory of value" or anything like it in real life.
It's not so much the correctness of the "labor theory of value" that matters. It's the exact way you think why it doesn't matter, that matters.
Because Marx at least tried to consider the sphere of production, whereas mainstream morons just jerk off onto the sphere of exchange and mythical market equilibrium.
Why can't you motherfrickers speak English?
>How come
>never considered hat if you dig a whole for 10 hours it isn't worth 10 hours of labour???
He did. It ain't just any labour. It has to be "socially-necessary" one.
Now, whether *that* in turn be empirically viable, is another question entirely. (it's not)
But the point is: you are one dumb moronic motherfricker, voice-farting squawks on a topic you know nothing of. And, while Marx is indeed incorrect, *your* attempts to "disprove" him do miss the target, making the rest of us look complicit in your dumbfrick stupidity.
I read that Adam Smith invented it.
I don’t like that labor theory does not take into account skill. If I’m making a product in 5 hours and another worker makes the product in 10 it doesn’t make his product more valuable it just means he sucks
I think its a bait but whatever, I will just post some of the first fricking page of the goddamn book.
“The utility of a thing makes it a use value.
Every useful thing […] may be looked at from the two points of view of quality and quantity.
A commodity, such as iron, corn, or a diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a use value, something useful. This property of a commodity is independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate its useful qualities.
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.
Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour time socially necessary is that required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time.
....
...
Diamonds are of very rare occurrence on the earth’s surface, and hence their discovery costs, on an average, a great deal of labour time. Consequently much labour is represented in a small compass. Jacob doubts whether gold has ever been paid for at its full value. This applies still more to diamonds. According to Eschwege, the total produce of the Brazilian diamond mines for the eighty years, ending in 1823, had not realised the price of one-and-a-half years’ average produce of the sugar and coffee plantations of the same country, although the diamonds cost much more labour, and therefore represented more value. With richer mines, the same quantity of labour would embody itself in more diamonds, and their value would fall. If we could succeed at a small expenditure of labour, in converting carbon into diamonds, their value might fall below that of bricks.
A thing can be a use value, without having value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not due to labour. Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows, &c. A thing can be useful, and the product of human labour, without being a commodity. Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labour, creates, indeed, use values, but not commodities.
Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value."
So the hole don't have value because it's useless, don't have a exchange value and is not a medium time of creation.
For Marx exist a thing named Abstract Labour, it take out all the quality of the work and equalizer to medium of all the social necessary time to a creation of a COMMODITY.
frick the marx..
The labor theory of value was invented by Adam Smith and revised by David Ricardo.
Marx extensively cites both and never claimed to have to have come up with it.