Tehon
Gold Member
- Jun 19, 2015
- 8,938
- 1,239
By exchanging the table with another commodity in proportion to the common denominator, labor time."Exchange value?" Now you're bringing in another bogus term. It cracks me up that you can't do any of your calculations until after the product is sold and you know the MARKET PRICE. What happened to your concept of "intrinsic value" if everything hinges on the market price of the product?It doesn't make sense. You first have to know what the exchange value is for the table. What commodity or proportion thereof is the equal exchange value to the table.Here's what I don't get: "how could I do it but by giving the worker less than the value that he created through his labor?"
How can we establish that the pay given the worker, measured in dollars, is "less than" the value created through labor, which Tehon has claimed is measured in "accumulated labor hours"? If I pay the worker $100 and it takes him 5 hours to complete the job, for example, how do we decide if $100 is less than 5 hours? How does that even make any sense?
Don't be such a spoil-sport!
I'll play, Tehon.
How do you decide what the equal exchange value is?
We've taken nature and invested 5 hours of labor time to create a use value, a table.
What can we exchange it for?
Someone has used their labor to pick and roast coffee beans. They produced 10 lbs in an hour.
We can exchange our table for 50 lbs of coffee.
The value of the table is represented by the 50 lbs of coffee.
Holy shit, why would you use that as your template for value? Do we factor in the skill required to perform the two different tasks? Do we factor in the raw physical difficulty involved? Do we factor in the difficulty of acquiring the raw materials to produce the products in question? Do we factor in the time and effort expended by someone who has earned access to the actual land from which those raw materials are acquired?
There are so many more difficult AND more impactful steps in producing coffee beans than just planting and picking.
But, ever has my problem with various iterations of Marxism been the absolutely stupid levels of over simplification. It always seemed to me to be less of a philosophy and more of a collection of rosy promises used to swindle sympathetic simpletons and envious, self-loathing middle class kids into burning down their own nations.
Where would you begin?Holy shit, why would you use that as your template for value?
You have a problem with oversimplification?
How has science come to understand human physiology? Did the scientific community study the whole of the body or did it break the parts down to their basic interactions?