Republicans can’t seem to accurately define what socialism is

[dblack]

Here's an idea: Tehon, instead of chasing you around the mulberry bush of "intrinsic value", Let's cut to the chase. Am I correct in assuming that you think capitalists make "money for nothing"? What's your view on profit?

It depends on the capitalist. Many perform labor. Many don't. Those that don't are making money for nothing.

My view on profit is that it should be spread around more equitably.

More equitably than what? Who decides what is "equitable"?

 

[dblack]

Good examples are movies that are huge duds at the box office. The movie Ishtar was one of the most expendsive ever made when it was released, but it turned out to be a huge dud.

That's a decent example. How about it Tehon, what was the intrinsic value of Ishtar?

Figure out the socially necessary labor required to complete it. That will get you there.

So, it has nothing to do with how good or bad the movie was? Doesn't that seem kind of idiotic, even to you?

Whether or not that movie was good or bad is of no consequence. Someone took the risk in producing it and had to pay to have it made. There was a lot of labor required to do so.

Every movie made takes that risk.

And people went to see it. I bet even some liked it. Personally, I don't know anything about it.

So, you're saying that the intrinsic value of a good or service has nothing to do with whether consumer actually want it.

That seems like a fairly useless conception of "value".

 

[Tehon]

Good examples are movies that are huge duds at the box office. The movie Ishtar was one of the most expendsive ever made when it was released, but it turned out to be a huge dud.

That's a decent example. How about it Tehon, what was the intrinsic value of Ishtar?

Figure out the socially necessary labor required to complete it. That will get you there.

So, it has nothing to do with how good or bad the movie was? Doesn't that seem kind of idiotic, even to you?

Whether or not that movie was good or bad is of no consequence. Someone took the risk in producing it and had to pay to have it made. There was a lot of labor required to do so.

Every movie made takes that risk.

And people went to see it. I bet even some liked it. Personally, I don't know anything about it.

So, you're saying that the intrinsic value of a good or service has nothing to do with whether consumer actually want it.

That seems like a fairly useless conception of "value".

It's a theory of value related specifically to labor. It is really a simple concept, I'm not sure why it is so controversial here.

Humans work to master the natural world. We create the material conditions for our existence. If we stopped laboring we would perish.

The only thing that turns a tree into a table is human labor.

Where's the controversy in that?

Can you see the value now. If we didn't labor we would cease to exist.

 

[bripat9643]

Prove it. You have already admitted the price is not the same as the value, so what is the value of an orange? How do you know the labor used to create it is the value? Marxists insist that labor is being ripped off by capitalists, so they claim labor isn't being paid what it's worth. How do you know what its worth?

Admit it? I explained it to you.

The value of the orange exchanged as a commodity is equal to the value of the labor involved in producing it. Where else would you derive value?

So, it sounds like this intrinsic value of a product is independent of the perceived utility of the labor, is that correct? So two products that took the same amount of labor to produce would have the same intrinsic value?

Labor is itself a commodity.

It takes labor time to develop a skill so the intrinsic value of skilled labor is more than that of unskilled labor.

Oh... well you said earlier "intrinsic value" was measured by 'accumulated labor hours'. But clearly, some labor hours are more equal than others. How do we measure that?

Did you not understand what I just said? It doesn't seem like it.

The value of a particular type of labor is equal to the time developing it.

Actually, no it isn't. What is the value of Leonardo DiVvinci's labor? How much time did he spend developing it compared to mediocre artists?

 

[bripat9643]

It

Assume it didn't. Maybe the people working on the medicine just got lucky. If the labor invested on the turd and the medicine were the same, would they have the same intrinsic value in your view?

I know better.

It's a hypothetical, dork. Are you not good with those?

The point you're running away from here, is that the utility of a good or service - it's usefulness and value to actual consumers - has nothing to do with how much labor went into it. You can work for hours and hours on something stupid, but that doesn't make your "something stupid" intrinsically valuable. It might be utterly worthless.

Good examples are movies that are huge duds at the box office. The movie Ishtar was one of the most expendsive ever made when it was released, but it turned out to be a huge dud.

That's a decent example. How about it Tehon, what was the intrinsic value of Ishtar?

Figure out the socially necessary labor required to complete it. That will get you there.

It gets you to the point of concluding the labor theory of value is bullshit.

 

[Tehon]

Admit it? I explained it to you.

The value of the orange exchanged as a commodity is equal to the value of the labor involved in producing it. Where else would you derive value?

So, it sounds like this intrinsic value of a product is independent of the perceived utility of the labor, is that correct? So two products that took the same amount of labor to produce would have the same intrinsic value?

Labor is itself a commodity.

It takes labor time to develop a skill so the intrinsic value of skilled labor is more than that of unskilled labor.

Oh... well you said earlier "intrinsic value" was measured by 'accumulated labor hours'. But clearly, some labor hours are more equal than others. How do we measure that?

Did you not understand what I just said? It doesn't seem like it.

The value of a particular type of labor is equal to the time developing it.

Actually, no it isn't. What is the value of Leonardo DiVvinci's labor? How much time did he spend developing it compared to mediocre artists?

Stop. You're a fucking moron.

Did da Vinci produce commodities in a capitalist economy?

 

[bripat9643]

I Grew Up in a Communist System. Here’s What Americans Don’t Understand About Freedom | Carmen Alexe

Do you notice how liberals never talk about communism? Communism has nothing to do with the American left wing ideology.

Of course they never use the word "communism," but they spew Marxist ideology all day long. What do you think the whole "pay their fair share" crap is about?

No prominent liberal has ever suggested eliminating the private market or paying everyone equally. Democrats in office sure as hell don’t say stuff like this.

Why am i not surprised you dont understand what communism is? You do understand of course that America has always had socialized programs right? What do you think our defense budget is? Fire and police? Or social security? Are you suggesting America has always been communist? Socializing oil wouid not be communism, duh.

Nationalizing the oil industry is about as close to communism as you can get.

 

[bripat9643]

So, it sounds like this intrinsic value of a product is independent of the perceived utility of the labor, is that correct? So two products that took the same amount of labor to produce would have the same intrinsic value?

Labor is itself a commodity.

It takes labor time to develop a skill so the intrinsic value of skilled labor is more than that of unskilled labor.

Oh... well you said earlier "intrinsic value" was measured by 'accumulated labor hours'. But clearly, some labor hours are more equal than others. How do we measure that?

Did you not understand what I just said? It doesn't seem like it.

The value of a particular type of labor is equal to the time developing it.

Actually, no it isn't. What is the value of Leonardo DiVvinci's labor? How much time did he spend developing it compared to mediocre artists?

Stop. You're a fucking moron.

Did da Vinci produce commodities in a capitalist economy?

Sure he did. He produced paintings and various inventions.

Your labor theory of value never mentions a capitalist economy being required for something to have an "intrinsic value."

 

[Tehon]

It

I know better.

It's a hypothetical, dork. Are you not good with those?

The point you're running away from here, is that the utility of a good or service - it's usefulness and value to actual consumers - has nothing to do with how much labor went into it. You can work for hours and hours on something stupid, but that doesn't make your "something stupid" intrinsically valuable. It might be utterly worthless.

Good examples are movies that are huge duds at the box office. The movie Ishtar was one of the most expendsive ever made when it was released, but it turned out to be a huge dud.

That's a decent example. How about it Tehon, what was the intrinsic value of Ishtar?

Figure out the socially necessary labor required to complete it. That will get you there.

It gets you to the point of concluding the labor theory of value is bullshit.

Is a movie a considered a commodity?

 

[Tehon]

Labor is itself a commodity.

It takes labor time to develop a skill so the intrinsic value of skilled labor is more than that of unskilled labor.

Oh... well you said earlier "intrinsic value" was measured by 'accumulated labor hours'. But clearly, some labor hours are more equal than others. How do we measure that?

Did you not understand what I just said? It doesn't seem like it.

The value of a particular type of labor is equal to the time developing it.

Actually, no it isn't. What is the value of Leonardo DiVvinci's labor? How much time did he spend developing it compared to mediocre artists?

Stop. You're a fucking moron.

Did da Vinci produce commodities in a capitalist economy?

Sure he did. He produced paintings and various inventions

To be exchanged for products of the same value?

 

[bripat9643]

It
It's a hypothetical, dork. Are you not good with those?

The point you're running away from here, is that the utility of a good or service - it's usefulness and value to actual consumers - has nothing to do with how much labor went into it. You can work for hours and hours on something stupid, but that doesn't make your "something stupid" intrinsically valuable. It might be utterly worthless.

Good examples are movies that are huge duds at the box office. The movie Ishtar was one of the most expendsive ever made when it was released, but it turned out to be a huge dud.

That's a decent example. How about it Tehon, what was the intrinsic value of Ishtar?

Figure out the socially necessary labor required to complete it. That will get you there.

It gets you to the point of concluding the labor theory of value is bullshit.

Is a movie a considered a commodity?

If you mean by "commodity," is it a product? Yes, just like any other product. Just like an Edsel. Millions of people consume the product when they go to see the movie. Or are you saying that your theory of value only applies to things like wheat and hog bellies?

 

[regent]

See how simple it was for Republicans to define socialism.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh... well you said earlier "intrinsic value" was measured by 'accumulated labor hours'. But clearly, some labor hours are more equal than others. How do we measure that?

Did you not understand what I just said? It doesn't seem like it.

The value of a particular type of labor is equal to the time developing it.

Actually, no it isn't. What is the value of Leonardo DiVvinci's labor? How much time did he spend developing it compared to mediocre artists?

Stop. You're a fucking moron.

Did da Vinci produce commodities in a capitalist economy?

Sure he did. He produced paintings and various inventions

To be exchanged for products of the same value?

We don't do that today. We echange things for cash, including our labor, just as DiVinci did.

 

[Tehon]

Good examples are movies that are huge duds at the box office. The movie Ishtar was one of the most expendsive ever made when it was released, but it turned out to be a huge dud.

That's a decent example. How about it Tehon, what was the intrinsic value of Ishtar?

Figure out the socially necessary labor required to complete it. That will get you there.

It gets you to the point of concluding the labor theory of value is bullshit.

Is a movie a considered a commodity?

If you mean by "commodity," is it a product? Yes, just like any other product. Just like an Edsel. Millions of people consume the product when they go to see the movie. Or are you saying that your theory of value only applies to things like wheat and hog bellies?

No not wheat. Something produced for the purpose of exchange.

I guess they would be.

 

[Tehon]

Did you not understand what I just said? It doesn't seem like it.

The value of a particular type of labor is equal to the time developing it.

Actually, no it isn't. What is the value of Leonardo DiVvinci's labor? How much time did he spend developing it compared to mediocre artists?

Stop. You're a fucking moron.

Did da Vinci produce commodities in a capitalist economy?

Sure he did. He produced paintings and various inventions

To be exchanged for products of the same value?

We don't do that today. We echange things for cash, including our labor, just as DiVinci did.

We do though. Money is a substitute. The theory relates to commodities produced for exchange in a capitalist economy.

 

[bripat9643]

That's a decent example. How about it Tehon, what was the intrinsic value of Ishtar?

Figure out the socially necessary labor required to complete it. That will get you there.

It gets you to the point of concluding the labor theory of value is bullshit.

Is a movie a considered a commodity?

If you mean by "commodity," is it a product? Yes, just like any other product. Just like an Edsel. Millions of people consume the product when they go to see the movie. Or are you saying that your theory of value only applies to things like wheat and hog bellies?

No not wheat. Something produced for the purpose of exchange.

I guess they would be.

If you intend to sell it, you are producing it in exchange for cash. Divinci painted the Mona Lisa in exchange for cash.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually, no it isn't. What is the value of Leonardo DiVvinci's labor? How much time did he spend developing it compared to mediocre artists?

Stop. You're a fucking moron.

Did da Vinci produce commodities in a capitalist economy?

Sure he did. He produced paintings and various inventions

To be exchanged for products of the same value?

We don't do that today. We echange things for cash, including our labor, just as DiVinci did.

We do though. Money is a substitute. The theory relates to commodities produced for exchange in a capitalist economy.

Money is not a substitute for a cow or a Bushel of wheat. Money is the means of exchange. It's only purpose is to make exchanging the stuff you produce easier. It makes exchange possible that wouldn't be possible otherwise. For example, a farmer needs some dishes. He has some cows. The potter doesn't want a cow, but money allows the farmer to give the potter something he can exchange for whatever he does want.

 

[jc456]

Except you never explain how the "definite value" can be measured. You simply insist that it exists and that it's different from the market price.

Accumulated labor hours.

Prove it. You have already admitted the price is not the same as the value, so what is the value of an orange? How do you know the labor used to create it is the value? Marxists insist that labor is being ripped off by capitalists, so they claim labor isn't being paid what it's worth. How do you know what its worth?

Admit it? I explained it to you.

The value of the orange exchanged as a commodity is equal to the value of the labor involved in producing it. Where else would you derive value?

If I hired someone to chop down a tree in my yard, mill the wood and create a piece of furniture that I intended to exchange for something of equal value with the intent of building capital, how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?

He also has talent, tools and expenses

By he, do you mean me?

You wish and it isn’t surprising you can’t follow your own analogy

 

[jc456]

Stop. You're a fucking moron.

Did da Vinci produce commodities in a capitalist economy?

Sure he did. He produced paintings and various inventions

To be exchanged for products of the same value?

We don't do that today. We echange things for cash, including our labor, just as DiVinci did.

We do though. Money is a substitute. The theory relates to commodities produced for exchange in a capitalist economy.

Money is not a substitute for a cow or a Bushel of wheat. Money is the means of exchange. It's only purpose is to make exchanging the stuff you produce easier. It makes exchange possible that wouldn't be possible otherwise. For example, a farmer needs some dishes. He has some cows. The potter doesn't want a cow, but money allows the farmer to give the potter something can exchange for whatever he does want.

That’s bartering it isn’t the same thing, poindexter

 

[Billy000]

Do you notice how liberals never talk about communism? Communism has nothing to do with the American left wing ideology.

Of course they never use the word "communism," but they spew Marxist ideology all day long. What do you think the whole "pay their fair share" crap is about?

No prominent liberal has ever suggested eliminating the private market or paying everyone equally. Democrats in office sure as hell don’t say stuff like this.

Why am i not surprised you dont understand what communism is? You do understand of course that America has always had socialized programs right? What do you think our defense budget is? Fire and police? Or social security? Are you suggesting America has always been communist? Socializing oil wouid not be communism, duh.

Nationalizing the oil industry is about as close to communism as you can get.

Lol and a socialized military, police and fire, and social security is not?