An Incontestable Argument for the Law of Value

January 2023 Forums General discussion An Incontestable Argument for the Law of Value

Tagged: 

Viewing 10 posts - 196 through 205 (of 205 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #230470
    ALB
    Keymaster

    It is clear that your labour theory of value is not the same as Marx’s but is what in #230437 is called

    “a “labor theory of things that have value,” which is very obviously true! Regardless of what value is, no commodity that has value has ever been the product of anything except some combination of (a) the nonhuman natural world and (b) human labor.”

    In fact you stated that this was your labour theory of value in the opening sentence of your post starting this thread:

    “It’s the fact that we know of nothing valuable that happens to have no labour embedded in it that appears an incontestable argument for the law of value discovered by Marx.”

    And, later, refer to

    “my thesis that we know of nothing valuable that does not contain some labour.”

    By “valuable” you mean have mean “has a market price”:

    “No value means no market-value, hence no market-price. Things without value are not bought or sold in a market”

    So your theory is: Everything that is (or could be) bought and sold contains some labour.

    The author of the article referred to in #230437 thought this is obvious. Marx didn’t as he thought that exceptions were virgin land and honour and conscience. But you say he was wrong about this in regard to the honour and conscience as in your view they will contain an element of human labour.

    Also, the classical Labour Theory of Value is not simply that everything that is bought and sold contains “some” labour but that their price depends in some way on the amount of labour they contain.

    That Marx didn’t agree with your theory is not a good argument against your theory. But it is a MIGHTY argument against your claim that your theory is “an incontestable argument for the law of value discovered by Marx”.

    The MIGHTIEST argument against the Prakashian Labour Theory of Value that everything that is bought and sold contains some labour is virgin land (and sea), and plots on the moon and on asteroids.

    If you are prepared to accept these comparatively rare exceptions your quest is over. You have found The Truth. The trouble is that it is not very profound. We already knew nearly everything that is bought and sold is the product of human labour.

    #230471
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    ‘That Marx didn’t agree with your theory is not a good argument against your theory. But it is a MIGHTY argument against your claim that your theory is “an incontestable argument for the law of value discovered by Marx”.’

    So, what you view as ‘not a good argument’ is ‘a MIGHTY argument’!!!

    ‘The MIGHTIEST argument against the Prakashian Labour Theory of Value that everything that is bought and sold contains some labour is virgin land (and sea), and plots on the moon and on asteroids.’

    Would like you to elaborate, with specific instances, on your ‘MIGHTIEST argument’, namely, your claim that things like ‘virgin land (and sea), and plots on the moon and on asteroids’ that do not contain any human labour are ‘bought and sold’.

    #230475
    ALB
    Keymaster

    No, not really. You can easily check for yourself on the internet whether land that has never had any human labour mixed with it can be and has been bought and sold. You are the one who wants to demonstrate the absolute validity of your rather trite theory that everything that is bought and sold will be found to contain at least some human labour.

    #230479
    DJP
    Participant
    #230490
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    You’re evasive. Such behaviour is outright unbecoming of a COMMUNIST who must always stand for the TRUTH. Recourse to silly tactics like evasiveness is expected from people that are devoid of the backbone needed to stand up straight with their heads held erect before the TRUTH.

    #230491
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    Hey DJP, what prevents you from citing pointblank an instance to support your position? What’s your purpose really? Do you want to know the TRUTH? A true TRUTH seeker doesn’t behave thus. They’re always STRAIGHTFORWARD.

    #230506
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    Hi robbo203, I’ve responded to your point. Have you got any other points against my stance on ‘value’? Really curious to know!

    #230507
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    Hi DJP, are you sure that you’re Not suffering from the ‘Dunning-Kruger effect’? So far you’ve lamentably failed to present a sensible argument in this debate on my view of value. You’re also lamentably lacking in the STRAIGHTFORWARDNESS that constitutes an essential attribute of a guy endowed with BACKBONE. You’re so INSIGNIFICANT. You should feel ashamed of yourself.

    #230613
    Prakash RP
    Participant

    Marx thought, mistakenly, that some valueless things (virgin soil, honour, conscience, etc.) may have prices and be bought & sold like commodities. Nevertheless, Marx did Not say anything to the effect that useful products of labour meant for self-use do Not or cannot have value or that useful labour may not always create value. Marx seems to have failed to consider the fact that useful products of labour (or products of useful labour), be they meant for the self-consumption or sale, have got value, hence price (money-value). Evidently, there’s No basic distinction between useful products of labour meant for self-use and commodities. Therefore, the view that useful products of labour meant for self-use are Not commodities is devoid of any logical foundation.
    Examples of saleable useful products of labour meant for self-use are numerous: residential houses, female cow-calves reared for milk, male calves bred by domestic cows, private cars for self-use, vegetables & fruits from plants grown in house gardens or roof-tops, puppies from pets, etc.

    The view that things produced for sale alone are commodities adds up to the silly view that products of useful labour turn commodities just when they’re offered for sale or the view that commodities originate during exchange in the market. Workers in a factory labour to make useful things because they’ve been asked to make them by the capitalist to whom they sold their labour-power the use-value (labour) of which belongs, as a result, to the capitalist. Factory workers do Not make anything for sale or self use. In fact, the manufacturing-unit workers are Not involved in the selling business. Thus, it follows that factory-products are Not commodities until they’re brought to the market. The question is, do they possess value? Does the labour of factory workers create value? If products of labour turn commodities in the market or during exchange, one may justifiably claim that human labour has Nothing to do with value. If the value of commodities originates in the market, both the Smithian and the Marxian theories of value prove wrong, as I see it.

    #230622
    DJP
    Participant

    Two short books might be useful here.

    Andrew Klimans’ “Marx’s Concept of Intrinsic Value”
    https://files.libcom.org/files/kliman.pdf

    and

    Harry Frankfurt’s “On Bullshit”
    http://www2.csudh.edu/ccauthen/576f12/frankfurt__harry_-_on_bullshit.pdf

Viewing 10 posts - 196 through 205 (of 205 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.