Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

[dblack]

Say we have Ted. Ted, over the years, has used much of his spare income to build a workshop attached to his home. He has built, bought, and otherwised compiled the machinery necessary to build furniture as efficiently as any one man might.

Then we have Chuck. Chuck picks wild berries on public land. He does this with only his hands and a small wicker basket.

In his workshop, Ted is able to make a table in 5 hours that would take someone without Ted's workshop facilities 20 hours to make. Since he makes it in 5 hours, is the "intrinsic value" of this table, in your mind, still worth only whatever amount of wild berries Chuck could harvest in 5 hours?

And this doesn't even account for the fact that building furniture properly isn't simple work. Proper carpentry is a skill earned through thousands of hours of experience. Any asshole with 2 hands can pick berries and drop 'em in a basket.

What Ted has done here is reduced the value of the table by eliminating labor time. See how that works? And he is going to force the other wood shops to cut their labor time so they can compete. This is how the concept of socially necessary labor time develops.

Another wood shop could decide not to compete and build a hand crafted table that requires more time to produce. More labor time equals more value. Of course this is where the subjectivity of use value comes into play. Some people appreciate the higher value in the handcrafted table.

No, I don't see how that works. If he reduced the value of the table by reducing the labor time, what would be the incentive to build the facilities in order to produce things more efficiently? You won't get anything more for having a greater production capacity, so why put in the effort? You're pushing for a system that rewards people for working stupid and dragging their heels. That's exactly why productivity drops to shit in communist countries, because "socially necessary labor time" means "work slower, you'll get paid the same", only in your particularly iteration, it's even worse, "work slower, you'll get paid MORE."

No, I don't see how that works. If he reduced the value of the table by reducing the labor time, what would be the incentive to build the facilities in order to produce things more efficiently? You won't get anything more for having a greater production capacity, so why put in the effort?

It's driven by competition. He does it because he seeks advantage over his competitor. How do you not see that?

The incentive is to build things cheaper which will give him an advantage in the marketplace, for a time, until his competitors catch up. Once they do the socially necessary labor time to produce the commodity decreases.

It's not oversimplification, it's fundamentals. Get you some.

It's the biggest load of flim-flam I've seen in a while - and that's counting Trump.

Seriously, Tehon - if you're seeing your self as an ambassador for socialism, don't quit your day job. You make it sound about as legit as Amway.

You think we are discussing socialism?

The labor theory of value relates to the capitalist method of production.

Fundamentals.

Fundamentally vague and evasive. I don't know if you're doing it deliberately, but you're equivocations don't clarify things - they obfuscate. Is that your intent?

 

[Tehon]

What Ted has done here is reduced the value of the table by eliminating labor time. See how that works? And he is going to force the other wood shops to cut their labor time so they can compete. This is how the concept of socially necessary labor time develops.

Another wood shop could decide not to compete and build a hand crafted table that requires more time to produce. More labor time equals more value. Of course this is where the subjectivity of use value comes into play. Some people appreciate the higher value in the handcrafted table.

No, I don't see how that works. If he reduced the value of the table by reducing the labor time, what would be the incentive to build the facilities in order to produce things more efficiently? You won't get anything more for having a greater production capacity, so why put in the effort? You're pushing for a system that rewards people for working stupid and dragging their heels. That's exactly why productivity drops to shit in communist countries, because "socially necessary labor time" means "work slower, you'll get paid the same", only in your particularly iteration, it's even worse, "work slower, you'll get paid MORE."

No, I don't see how that works. If he reduced the value of the table by reducing the labor time, what would be the incentive to build the facilities in order to produce things more efficiently? You won't get anything more for having a greater production capacity, so why put in the effort?

It's driven by competition. He does it because he seeks advantage over his competitor. How do you not see that?

The incentive is to build things cheaper which will give him an advantage in the marketplace, for a time, until his competitors catch up. Once they do the socially necessary labor time to produce the commodity decreases.

It's not oversimplification, it's fundamentals. Get you some.

It's the biggest load of flim-flam I've seen in a while - and that's counting Trump.

Seriously, Tehon - if you're seeing your self as an ambassador for socialism, don't quit your day job. You make it sound about as legit as Amway.

You think we are discussing socialism?

The labor theory of value relates to the capitalist method of production.

Fundamentals.

Fundamentally vague and evasive. I don't know if you're doing it deliberately, but you're equivocations don't clarify things - they obfuscate. Is that your intent?

It was never my intent to discuss the labor theory of value in this thread.
It was brought up by bripat with the claim that the theory had been refuted. He was asked to support the claim and that somehow turned into me having to prove it.

If you don't believe I represented it very well that is your prerogative.
Intellectually you are void of any integrity because you are claiming that something you don't understand and can't explain on your own has no merit and demand that I prove to you that it does. An impossible challenge.

The theory is represented in Chapter 1 of Das Kapital, if the fancy to read it strikes you. At least then you will have standing to critique me.

 

[dblack]

No, I don't see how that works. If he reduced the value of the table by reducing the labor time, what would be the incentive to build the facilities in order to produce things more efficiently? You won't get anything more for having a greater production capacity, so why put in the effort? You're pushing for a system that rewards people for working stupid and dragging their heels. That's exactly why productivity drops to shit in communist countries, because "socially necessary labor time" means "work slower, you'll get paid the same", only in your particularly iteration, it's even worse, "work slower, you'll get paid MORE."

No, I don't see how that works. If he reduced the value of the table by reducing the labor time, what would be the incentive to build the facilities in order to produce things more efficiently? You won't get anything more for having a greater production capacity, so why put in the effort?

It's driven by competition. He does it because he seeks advantage over his competitor. How do you not see that?

The incentive is to build things cheaper which will give him an advantage in the marketplace, for a time, until his competitors catch up. Once they do the socially necessary labor time to produce the commodity decreases.

It's not oversimplification, it's fundamentals. Get you some.

It's the biggest load of flim-flam I've seen in a while - and that's counting Trump.

Seriously, Tehon - if you're seeing your self as an ambassador for socialism, don't quit your day job. You make it sound about as legit as Amway.

You think we are discussing socialism?

The labor theory of value relates to the capitalist method of production.

Fundamentals.

Fundamentally vague and evasive. I don't know if you're doing it deliberately, but you're equivocations don't clarify things - they obfuscate. Is that your intent?

It was never my intent to discuss the labor theory of value in this thread.
It was brought up by bripat with the claim that the theory had been refuted. He was asked to support the claim and that somehow turned into me having to prove it.

If you don't believe I represented it very well that is your prerogative.
Intellectually you are void of any integrity because you are claiming that something you don't understand and can't explain on your own has no merit and demand that I prove to you that it does. An impossible challenge.

The theory is represented in Chapter 1 of Das Kapital, if the fancy to read it strikes you. At least then you will have standing to critique me.

If your arguments don't make sense, I have all the standing I need to critique them.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't know about the articles, but what -you- said was that 5 hours of table making was worth 5 hours of coffee picking.

Quantitatively speaking, how is that wrong?

Is 5 hours of open heart surgery equal to 5 hours of weeding a coffee field?

 

[Tehon]

I don't know about the articles, but what -you- said was that 5 hours of table making was worth 5 hours of coffee picking.

Quantitatively speaking, how is that wrong?

Is 5 hours of open heart surgery equal to 5 hours of weeding a coffee field?

Quantitatively, yes.

Qualitatively, no.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't know about the articles, but what -you- said was that 5 hours of table making was worth 5 hours of coffee picking.

Quantitatively speaking, how is that wrong?

Is 5 hours of open heart surgery equal to 5 hours of weeding a coffee field?

Quantitatively, yes.

Qualitatively, no.

Meaningless. How about in terms of money?

 

[Tehon]

I don't know about the articles, but what -you- said was that 5 hours of table making was worth 5 hours of coffee picking.

Quantitatively speaking, how is that wrong?

Is 5 hours of open heart surgery equal to 5 hours of weeding a coffee field?

Quantitatively, yes.

Qualitatively, no.

Meaningless. How about in terms of money?

Obviously the heart surgeon commands more money.

Are you being serious?

 

[danielpalos]

Paying the Debts, and providing for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States, with the other Peoples' Tax monies, is applied socialism.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't know about the articles, but what -you- said was that 5 hours of table making was worth 5 hours of coffee picking.

Quantitatively speaking, how is that wrong?

Is 5 hours of open heart surgery equal to 5 hours of weeding a coffee field?

Quantitatively, yes.

Qualitatively, no.

Meaningless. How about in terms of money?

Obviously the heart surgeon commands more money.

Are you being serious?

ROFL. I thought all labor was equal.

 

[Tehon]

Quantitatively speaking, how is that wrong?

Is 5 hours of open heart surgery equal to 5 hours of weeding a coffee field?

Quantitatively, yes.

Qualitatively, no.

Meaningless. How about in terms of money?

Obviously the heart surgeon commands more money.

Are you being serious?

ROFL. I thought all labor was equal.

It is, quantitatively. But you think it is meaningless.

 

[bripat9643]

Is 5 hours of open heart surgery equal to 5 hours of weeding a coffee field?

Quantitatively, yes.

Qualitatively, no.

Meaningless. How about in terms of money?

Obviously the heart surgeon commands more money.

Are you being serious?

ROFL. I thought all labor was equal.

It is, quantitatively. But you think it is meaningless.

Meaning 5 hours is 5 hours. You're great at posting tautologies.

The question here is if they have the same value. What does Marx say about that?

 

[Tehon]

Quantitatively, yes.

Qualitatively, no.

Meaningless. How about in terms of money?

Obviously the heart surgeon commands more money.

Are you being serious?

ROFL. I thought all labor was equal.

It is, quantitatively. But you think it is meaningless.

Meaning 5 hours is 5 hours. You're great at posting tautologies.

The question here is if they have the same value. What does Marx say about that?

He sees it as generalized labor. An hour of labor is equal to an hour of labor. It is quantitatively the same, qualitatively different.

The reason the heart surgeon commands more money is due to the accumulated labor in acquiring the skills necessary to perform heart surgery. It increases the value of his commodity, which is his labor. The total accumulated value in performing heart surgery is greater than that of pulling weeds.


Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One
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. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value.

We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production.[9] Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class.[10] Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. “As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time.”[11]

 

[dblack]

Quantitatively, yes.

Qualitatively, no.

Meaningless. How about in terms of money?

Obviously the heart surgeon commands more money.

Are you being serious?

ROFL. I thought all labor was equal.

It is, quantitatively. But you think it is meaningless.

Meaning 5 hours is 5 hours. You're great at posting tautologies.

The question here is if they have the same value. What does Marx say about that?

As a made up way of arbitrarily measuring "labor", there's nothing necessarily wrong with Marx's theory. But there's not much worthwhile you can do with that measure, other than equivocate on market value - which is what he does. Marx was intent on "proving" that capitalists inevitably screw laborers. His entire body of work is a rationalization to justify that view.

 

[Tehon]

It's driven by competition. He does it because he seeks advantage over his competitor. How do you not see that?

The incentive is to build things cheaper which will give him an advantage in the marketplace, for a time, until his competitors catch up. Once they do the socially necessary labor time to produce the commodity decreases.

It's not oversimplification, it's fundamentals. Get you some.

It's the biggest load of flim-flam I've seen in a while - and that's counting Trump.

Seriously, Tehon - if you're seeing your self as an ambassador for socialism, don't quit your day job. You make it sound about as legit as Amway.

You think we are discussing socialism?

The labor theory of value relates to the capitalist method of production.

Fundamentals.

Fundamentally vague and evasive. I don't know if you're doing it deliberately, but you're equivocations don't clarify things - they obfuscate. Is that your intent?

It was never my intent to discuss the labor theory of value in this thread.
It was brought up by bripat with the claim that the theory had been refuted. He was asked to support the claim and that somehow turned into me having to prove it.

If you don't believe I represented it very well that is your prerogative.
Intellectually you are void of any integrity because you are claiming that something you don't understand and can't explain on your own has no merit and demand that I prove to you that it does. An impossible challenge.

The theory is represented in Chapter 1 of Das Kapital, if the fancy to read it strikes you. At least then you will have standing to critique me.

If your arguments don't make sense, I have all the standing I need to critique them.

You think we are discussing socialism. Nothing will make sense to you.

 

[Tehon]

As a made up way of arbitrarily measuring "labor"

Says the guy that believes all value is subjective.

 

[Tehon]

Marx was intent on "proving" that capitalists inevitably screw laborers. His entire body of work is a rationalization to justify that view.

You don't even know what he said in chapter 1 of his most important work. Who the hell is going to believe you know what he said in chapters 2-33......................... of volume 1.

 

[Billy000]

Only two of those I would call Modern socialist countries , Spain and Italy. Or successful. Like I said Scandinavia EU original.. Canada Australia New Zealand Japan. We are the richest country in the world for crying out loud.

No they aren't the richest.

and all of that is modern socialism and or communism.

oh and, Scandinavia goes tits up if you enforce your green energy on them.

I said we are the richest country but we have so much inequality and so few benefits of citizenship like good pay good vacations good day care good health care paid parental leave cheap College. You GOP dupes are obsessed with immigrants and guns and abortion I suppose which the GOP will never solve because they're bought off d u h, dupe.

I love listening to you lie about America.

You act like you hate it here, and have acted that way since I've known you, but you refuse to leave.

walk that talk bitch

I'm afraid you can't leave and after a while I don't want to. It's my country it's the GOP that sucks and it's stupid dupes like you brainwashed functional moron. How How a about those UB Bulls? Good night

but its' the dems that HATE America.

fool

Do you notice how liberals never actually say that?

 

[Circe]

The truth of the matter is that it is a very broad term. It’s something that’s always been apart of the framework of this country yet Repubs like to pretend it is the antithesis of the Founding Father’s philosophy. Republicans have a hard time even defining the term in their OWN WORDS. That alone tells you they lack a basic understanding of the word.

There's no need to define it! We just have to fight it.

Words don't matter. Causing you to lose is what is important.

 

[francoHFW]

No they aren't the richest.

and all of that is modern socialism and or communism.

oh and, Scandinavia goes tits up if you enforce your green energy on them.

I said we are the richest country but we have so much inequality and so few benefits of citizenship like good pay good vacations good day care good health care paid parental leave cheap College. You GOP dupes are obsessed with immigrants and guns and abortion I suppose which the GOP will never solve because they're bought off d u h, dupe.

I love listening to you lie about America.

You act like you hate it here, and have acted that way since I've known you, but you refuse to leave.

walk that talk bitch

I'm afraid you can't leave and after a while I don't want to. It's my country it's the GOP that sucks and it's stupid dupes like you brainwashed functional moron. How How a about those UB Bulls? Good night

but its' the dems that HATE America.

fool

Do you notice how liberals never actually say that?

It is ridiculous to say so... GOP hater Dupes!

 

[bripat9643]

Meaningless. How about in terms of money?

Obviously the heart surgeon commands more money.

Are you being serious?

ROFL. I thought all labor was equal.

It is, quantitatively. But you think it is meaningless.

Meaning 5 hours is 5 hours. You're great at posting tautologies.

The question here is if they have the same value. What does Marx say about that?

He sees it as generalized labor. An hour of labor is equal to an hour of labor. It is quantitatively the same, qualitatively different.

The reason the heart surgeon commands more money is due to the accumulated labor in acquiring the skills necessary to perform heart surgery. It increases the value of his commodity, which is his labor. The total accumulated value in performing heart surgery is greater than that of pulling weeds.


Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One
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. The introduction of power-looms into England probably reduced by one-half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yarn into cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued to require the same time as before; but for all that, the product of one hour of their labour represented after the change only half an hour’s social labour, and consequently fell to one-half its former value.

We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production.[9] Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class.[10] Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the labour time necessary for the production of the one is to that necessary for the production of the other. “As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time.”[11]

Marx is weaseling around the concept of the market price. That's all he means by "the amount of labour socially necessary." There are so many flaws in his rationalization that I wouldn't waste my time debunking it. Many economists have already done that. The bottom line is that the above is pure bunk.