Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

[jc456]

What am I making up?

That is how the system works now.

You're making up the part of your theory that you average all labor costs across a product to get the so-called "intrinsic value." Please quote something that show this calculation is part of Marxist theory. I have certainly never seen it.

The bottom line is that "intrinsic value" doesn't exist.

You've never read Marx, tool.

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]
Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One

OK, he says it. Now where does he prove it?

You only need it proved to you because you're stupid.
If two companies make the same table and one can produce it in 40% less time, how does the second compete?

The first company simply earns more profit than the second company. Do you imagine all wheat farmers have the same cost of production? Nope. some farmers have more fertile land, better rainfall or a smarter farmer. They can produce wheat for half the cost of other wheat farmers. They either make more money or work half as hard. Your belief that all producers have the same cost of production is erroneous. Your labor theory of value is built on one erroneous assumption after another.

Anyone who doesn't explect claims to be proved is stupid.

take a group of fishing boats as another example, they all get paid for the load of fish they bring in. they all work the same hours, one boat may come back fully loaded and set the price for fish, the others only bring in enough to make a buck. all the same labor hours.

 

[Tehon]

What am I making up?

That is how the system works now.

You're making up the part of your theory that you average all labor costs across a product to get the so-called "intrinsic value." Please quote something that show this calculation is part of Marxist theory. I have certainly never seen it.

The bottom line is that "intrinsic value" doesn't exist.

You've never read Marx, tool.

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]
Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One

OK, he says it. Now where does he prove it?

You only need it proved to you because you're stupid.
If two companies make the same table and one can produce it in 40% less time, how does the second compete?

The first company simply earns more profit than the second company. Do you imagine all wheat farmers have the same cost of production? Nope. some farmers have more fertile land, better rainfall or a smarter farmer. They can produce wheat for half the cost of other wheat farmers. They either make more money or work half as hard. Your belief that all producers have the same cost of production is erroneous. Your labor theory of value is built on one erroneous assumption after another.

Anyone who doesn't explect claims to be proved is stupid.

We are not talking about cost of production. We are talking about the ability to produce the same table in reasonably the same amount of time.

 

[jc456]

You're making up the part of your theory that you average all labor costs across a product to get the so-called "intrinsic value." Please quote something that show this calculation is part of Marxist theory. I have certainly never seen it.

The bottom line is that "intrinsic value" doesn't exist.

You've never read Marx, tool.

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]
Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One

OK, he says it. Now where does he prove it?

You only need it proved to you because you're stupid.
If two companies make the same table and one can produce it in 40% less time, how does the second compete?

The first company simply earns more profit than the second company. Do you imagine all wheat farmers have the same cost of production? Nope. some farmers have more fertile land, better rainfall or a smarter farmer. They can produce wheat for half the cost of other wheat farmers. They either make more money or work half as hard. Your belief that all producers have the same cost of production is erroneous. Your labor theory of value is built on one erroneous assumption after another.

Anyone who doesn't explect claims to be proved is stupid.

We are not talking about cost of production. We are talking about the ability to produce the same table in reasonably the same amount of time.

there are still many variables that won't make time the same. many

 

[Tehon]

You've never read Marx, tool.

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]
Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One

OK, he says it. Now where does he prove it?

You only need it proved to you because you're stupid.
If two companies make the same table and one can produce it in 40% less time, how does the second compete?

The first company simply earns more profit than the second company. Do you imagine all wheat farmers have the same cost of production? Nope. some farmers have more fertile land, better rainfall or a smarter farmer. They can produce wheat for half the cost of other wheat farmers. They either make more money or work half as hard. Your belief that all producers have the same cost of production is erroneous. Your labor theory of value is built on one erroneous assumption after another.

Anyone who doesn't explect claims to be proved is stupid.

We are not talking about cost of production. We are talking about the ability to produce the same table in reasonably the same amount of time.

there are still many variables that won't make time the same. many

Go on, I'm listening.

 

[jc456]

OK, he says it. Now where does he prove it?

You only need it proved to you because you're stupid.
If two companies make the same table and one can produce it in 40% less time, how does the second compete?

The first company simply earns more profit than the second company. Do you imagine all wheat farmers have the same cost of production? Nope. some farmers have more fertile land, better rainfall or a smarter farmer. They can produce wheat for half the cost of other wheat farmers. They either make more money or work half as hard. Your belief that all producers have the same cost of production is erroneous. Your labor theory of value is built on one erroneous assumption after another.

Anyone who doesn't explect claims to be proved is stupid.

We are not talking about cost of production. We are talking about the ability to produce the same table in reasonably the same amount of time.

there are still many variables that won't make time the same. many

Go on, I'm listening.

type of equipment, temperature and humidity, type of tree, type of stain, experience, number of workers, type of workers.

 

[Tehon]

You only need it proved to you because you're stupid.
If two companies make the same table and one can produce it in 40% less time, how does the second compete?

The first company simply earns more profit than the second company. Do you imagine all wheat farmers have the same cost of production? Nope. some farmers have more fertile land, better rainfall or a smarter farmer. They can produce wheat for half the cost of other wheat farmers. They either make more money or work half as hard. Your belief that all producers have the same cost of production is erroneous. Your labor theory of value is built on one erroneous assumption after another.

Anyone who doesn't explect claims to be proved is stupid.

We are not talking about cost of production. We are talking about the ability to produce the same table in reasonably the same amount of time.

there are still many variables that won't make time the same. many

Go on, I'm listening.

type of equipment, temperature and humidity, type of tree, type of stain, experience, number of workers, type of workers.

You all get back to me when you have a better understanding of the theory. I'm done for now.

 

[jc456]

The first company simply earns more profit than the second company. Do you imagine all wheat farmers have the same cost of production? Nope. some farmers have more fertile land, better rainfall or a smarter farmer. They can produce wheat for half the cost of other wheat farmers. They either make more money or work half as hard. Your belief that all producers have the same cost of production is erroneous. Your labor theory of value is built on one erroneous assumption after another.

Anyone who doesn't explect claims to be proved is stupid.

We are not talking about cost of production. We are talking about the ability to produce the same table in reasonably the same amount of time.

there are still many variables that won't make time the same. many

Go on, I'm listening.

type of equipment, temperature and humidity, type of tree, type of stain, experience, number of workers, type of workers.

You all get back to me when you have a better understanding of the theory. I'm done for now.

that's what losers do, they leave.

 

[bripat9643]

You're making up the part of your theory that you average all labor costs across a product to get the so-called "intrinsic value." Please quote something that show this calculation is part of Marxist theory. I have certainly never seen it.

The bottom line is that "intrinsic value" doesn't exist.

You've never read Marx, tool.

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]
Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One

OK, he says it. Now where does he prove it?

You only need it proved to you because you're stupid.
If two companies make the same table and one can produce it in 40% less time, how does the second compete?

The first company simply earns more profit than the second company. Do you imagine all wheat farmers have the same cost of production? Nope. some farmers have more fertile land, better rainfall or a smarter farmer. They can produce wheat for half the cost of other wheat farmers. They either make more money or work half as hard. Your belief that all producers have the same cost of production is erroneous. Your labor theory of value is built on one erroneous assumption after another.

Anyone who doesn't explect claims to be proved is stupid.

We are not talking about cost of production. We are talking about the ability to produce the same table in reasonably the same amount of time.

So you're talking about the labor cost of production. If one factory buys a bunch of intelligent robots and lowers it's labor costs by 90%, then the labor required for each factory is vastly different. The same goes if one factory is simply better managed than the other one. Or we can take a very common example: We have a huge factory where the labor required has been reduced to the absolute minimum, or the small shop of a craftsmen who makes furniture one piece at a time. The labor involved in the latter case is many times the labor in the the former case.

 

[bripat9643]

The first company simply earns more profit than the second company. Do you imagine all wheat farmers have the same cost of production? Nope. some farmers have more fertile land, better rainfall or a smarter farmer. They can produce wheat for half the cost of other wheat farmers. They either make more money or work half as hard. Your belief that all producers have the same cost of production is erroneous. Your labor theory of value is built on one erroneous assumption after another.

Anyone who doesn't explect claims to be proved is stupid.

We are not talking about cost of production. We are talking about the ability to produce the same table in reasonably the same amount of time.

there are still many variables that won't make time the same. many

Go on, I'm listening.

type of equipment, temperature and humidity, type of tree, type of stain, experience, number of workers, type of workers.

You all get back to me when you have a better understanding of the theory. I'm done for now.

We have a perfect understanding of the theory. That's why we're ridiculing it.

 

[dblack]

what if it takes 20 hours to make a table at one place and 12 hours at another place, then the value isn't equal.

The value is the average time to produce the table.

How do you figure? You're just making this stuff up.

What am I making up?

That is how the system works now.

You're making up the part of your theory that you average all labor costs across a product to get the so-called "intrinsic value." Please quote something that show this calculation is part of Marxist theory. I have certainly never seen it.

The bottom line is that "intrinsic value" doesn't exist.

You've never read Marx, tool.

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]
Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One

Listen, I have no problem with philosophers redefining words to suite a subtle construct. They do it all the time. They often need to because they are dealing with novel ideas that aren't easily express in common language. Often, it's convenient to tweak a common word to mean something specific for your argument. eg. it's easier to say "value" each time you want to express your new idea, than to say "amount of labor socially necessary".

Now, the problem comes when you export these specially defined words from philosophy and equivocate on their mundane cousins. The "value" = "intrinsic value" = "amount of labour socially necessary" you're talking about has nothing at all to do with market value.

 

[bripat9643]

The value is the average time to produce the table.

How do you figure? You're just making this stuff up.

What am I making up?

That is how the system works now.

You're making up the part of your theory that you average all labor costs across a product to get the so-called "intrinsic value." Please quote something that show this calculation is part of Marxist theory. I have certainly never seen it.

The bottom line is that "intrinsic value" doesn't exist.

You've never read Marx, tool.

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]
Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I - Chapter One

Listen, I have no problem with philosophers redefining words to suite a subtle construct. They do it all the time. They often need to because they are dealing with novel ideas that aren't easily express in common language. Often, it's convenient to tweak a common word to mean something specific for your argument. eg. it's easier to say "value" each time you want to express your new idea, than to say "amount of labor socially necessary".

Now, the problem comes when you export these specially defined words from philosophy and equivocate on their mundane cousins. The "value" = "intrinsic value" = "amount of labour socially necessary" you're talking about has nothing at all to do with market value.

The important thing to keep in mind is that Karl Marx claimed to be an economist, not a philosopher. Most of his supporters also claim he is an economist, including Tehon. Economic terms have very specific meanings, but Tehon uses the term "value" to mean a number of different things. That's how demagogues operate, not economists.

 

[Tehon]

The "value" = "intrinsic value" = "amount of labour socially necessary" you're talking about has nothing at all to do with market value.

Very good, I made that point 11 pages ago.

Marx made it 150 years ago.

 

[bripat9643]

The "value" = "intrinsic value" = "amount of labour socially necessary" you're talking about has nothing at all to do with market value.

Very good, I made that point 11 pages ago.

Marx made it 150 years ago.

You made the point that Marx's labor theory of value is economically meaningless?

 

[dblack]

The "value" = "intrinsic value" = "amount of labour socially necessary" you're talking about has nothing at all to do with market value.

Very good, I made that point 11 pages ago.

Marx made it 150 years ago.

You made the point that Marx's labor theory of value is economically meaningless?

No, Marx did. 150 years ago.

 

[regent]

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.

Citation needed. It looks to me like you're considering infrastructure as Socialist, despite that being totally false, and debunked by me the last time we discussed it.

There’s really no need to cite anything. Any program funded by tax payers is socialism. You will figure that out if you look up the actual definition. Our defense budget, for example, is the biggest socialist institution in the world. Lol and of course our infrastructure is socialist. It’s funded by tax payers.

There's not a modern country in the world that doesn't practice socialism in one form or other. Socialism bails out the capitalists pretty often... 1932, 2008. There will probably be another one before Trump finishes his term.

Socialism did not bail us out in 1932. In fact, it made the problem ten times worse.

Yeah, that's why FDR has been named America's greatest president and the people elected him four times.

 

[Tehon]

The "value" = "intrinsic value" = "amount of labour socially necessary" you're talking about has nothing at all to do with market value.

Very good, I made that point 11 pages ago.

Marx made it 150 years ago.

You made the point that Marx's labor theory of value is economically meaningless?

Economics is a social science, yes. It purports to study the system of production and distribution of life's necessities in society. As such, Marx's theory of labor value is of great value (not market value ) to the understanding of economics. He stripped away the facade that is the money form and exposed the true essence of the commodity, the basic unit of trade in an economy.

It can be ignored, indeed it has been actively suppressed. But it is still there, underlying the whole economic system. His theory accurately explains the capitalist system of production.

There are two sources of value in an economy. Nature and labor. It is only by labor that nature is improved upon. Value added.

Labor has been exploited in one form or another for most of human history.

In human's less developed stage slavery was the method.

As humans developed, that form of exploitation lost favor and a new system of exploitation developed in the form of feudalism. Now people were free to work the land for themselves but only after they had produced what was required from the owners of the land. Well, some people were set free anyway.

Eventually that lost favor and a new form of labor exploitation developed, capitalism.

^ this is what Marx's theory makes evident.

It is only labor that improves upon nature and adds value to society in the form of a commodity. Without labor your economic system is irrelevant, it doesn't exist.

You two are nothing but a couple of monkeys slinging mud in all directions trying to discredit something that is fundamentally true.

 

[Anathema]

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.

Republicans may have a hard time doing it, but we Conservatives don't.

Socialism is the socioeconomic philosophy that Society is more important than individuals. That individuals need to subvert their own best interests for the betterment of the people and that the Government knows better what to do with your money, skills, etc... than you do. All in all it's the idea that somehow I am supposed to be more interested in the betterment of people other than myself rather than my own betterment.

 

[Mac1958]

Unless it's stipulated that a vast majority of socio-economic systems exist on a continuum, that you're usually not "one" or "the other", this is nothing but platitudes & rhetoric.

 

[dblack]

The "value" = "intrinsic value" = "amount of labour socially necessary" you're talking about has nothing at all to do with market value.

Very good, I made that point 11 pages ago.

Marx made it 150 years ago.

You made the point that Marx's labor theory of value is economically meaningless?

Economics is a social science, yes. It purports to study the system of production and distribution of life's necessities in society. As such, Marx's theory of labor value is of great value (not market value ) to the understanding of economics. He stripped away the facade that is the money form and exposed the true essence of the commodity, the basic unit of trade in an economy.

It can be ignored, indeed it has been actively suppressed. But it is still there, underlying the whole economic system. His theory accurately explains the capitalist system of production.

There are two sources of value in an economy. Nature and labor. It is only by labor that nature is improved upon. Value added.

Labor has been exploited in one form or another for most of human history.

In human's less developed stage slavery was the method.

As humans developed, that form of exploitation lost favor and a new system of exploitation developed in the form of feudalism. Now people were free to work the land for themselves but only after they had produced what was required from the owners of the land. Well, some people were set free anyway.

Eventually that lost favor and a new form of labor exploitation developed, capitalism.

^ this is what Marx's theory makes evident.

It is only labor that improves upon nature and adds value to society in the form of a commodity. Without labor your economic system is irrelevant, it doesn't exist.

You two are nothing but a couple of monkeys slinging mud in all directions trying to discredit something that is fundamentally true.

The fundamental conceit of marxists is their conviction that capitalists (entrepreneurs, business owners, investors, speculators, etc...) contribute no labor, and add no value, to the goods and services they produce, that profit is, by nature "unearned". It's all "money-for-nothing".

It isn't until they get their druthers, and eliminate the capitalists, that they realize their error.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Citation needed. It looks to me like you're considering infrastructure as Socialist, despite that being totally false, and debunked by me the last time we discussed it.

There’s really no need to cite anything. Any program funded by tax payers is socialism. You will figure that out if you look up the actual definition. Our defense budget, for example, is the biggest socialist institution in the world. Lol and of course our infrastructure is socialist. It’s funded by tax payers.

There's not a modern country in the world that doesn't practice socialism in one form or other. Socialism bails out the capitalists pretty often... 1932, 2008. There will probably be another one before Trump finishes his term.

Socialism did not bail us out in 1932. In fact, it made the problem ten times worse.

Yeah, that's why FDR has been named America's greatest president and the people elected him four times.

He was named America's greatest president by sycophants on the government payroll. Intelligent rational Americans understand that he was America's biggest disaster. The people elected him 4 times after Roosevelt bribed them with their own money.