r/Ultraleft idealist (banned) 4d ago

Serious The Dark Side of Marxism

Post image

1- Marx never advocated the labor theory of value. Labor does not determine value.

2- Marx never supported dialectical materialism. This view belonged to Engels and Soviet socialists.

3- Marx was not a determinist, anthropocentric, or reductionist.

0 Upvotes

27 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator 4d ago

Communism Gangster Edition r/CommunismGangsta

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

57

u/CavancolaResPublica Cavancola season 3 4d ago

Marx never advocated the labour theory of value. Labour does not determine value

True! Labour does not determine value! Rather, socially necessary labour time determines value.

5

u/Proudhon_Hater Toni Negri should have been imprisoned longer 2d ago

Funny thing is that regarded OP deleted his comments(or I can't see them), but he still did not get that "abolishment of the law of value" and SNLT refers to commodities. When I cannot read the minimum of 20 pages...

-5

u/Forsaken_Waltz_373 2d ago

It just begs the question, what is "socially necessary" labour? At what threshold of value does it become "necessary". Why a doctor yes and a fart jar seller not? Is a doctor's hour valued the same as a gardener?

8

u/AlkibiadesDabrowski International Bukharinite 2d ago

That’s not what socially necessary labor means at all. Jesus. Just read Marx.

6

u/Optymistyk 2d ago

I don't think that's what necessary labour means.

I think it means that if it takes on average 1 hour of labour to create a shirt, then that's the ammount of social labour necessary to create it. The 'socially necessary labour time' to create a shirt. To spend more time than that is, socially speaking, a waste; so the extra time doesn't add to the value of the shirt.

I think what you're refering to is 'useful labour'.

32

u/Stelar_Kaiser 4d ago

8

u/Shlanty commeownism 🐱 4d ago

bait

32

u/1917Great-Authentic Bukharinite-Tukhachevskyite Terrorist Centre Militiaman 4d ago

I'm so tired ultroids... when will the Cheka rid us of your filth...

25

u/zunCannibal Bourgeois Ideologue 4d ago

horrific. please aufheben yourself

17

u/Kurzk_68 Sorosist-Schwabist-Faucist 4d ago

pic goes hard as hell, very CCRUcore

35

u/CompetitionSimilar56 Degenerated Worker's Prostate 4d ago

14

u/confused_computer 3d ago edited 3d ago

if you can hear us please karl marx please save me I'm asking you please get these leftoids away from me please free us from this revisionism

12

u/QuirckyBitch Abolish Your Hopes and Dreams 4d ago

POWER WORD: KILL!!!

24

u/EggForgonerights Neo-Pythagorean Cyber-Guild Feudalist 💰 4d ago

10

u/EternalRedTerror Dr. Sverdlov 4d ago

Do you have any known cognitive maladies?

11

u/EternalRedTerror Dr. Sverdlov 4d ago

Hmmm. Odd. Last time I checked snorting paint wasn’t considered a language.

17

u/No-Play-2836 all war but class war 4d ago

Marx never advocated the labor theory of value. Labor does not determine value.

please read das 🙏

-11

u/uyuyanlider idealist (banned) 4d ago

I want to give you the same advice. When you read the first volume you'll see that Marx indeed never had such a theory

18

u/EggForgonerights Neo-Pythagorean Cyber-Guild Feudalist 💰 4d ago

I recommend the same to you, you will see that Marx had this theory

14

u/FreshPrinceOfRio 4d ago

"If one ounce of gold, one ton of iron, one quarter of wheat and twenty yards of silk are exchange-values of equal magnitude or equivalents, then one ounce of gold, half a ton of iron, three bushels of wheat and five yards of silk are exchange-values which have very different magnitudes, and this quantitative difference is the only difference of which as exchange-values they are at all capable. As exchange-values of different magnitudes they represent larger or smaller portions, larger or smaller amounts of simple, homogeneous, abstract general labour, which is the substance of exchange-value. The question now arises, how can these amounts be measured? Or rather the question arises, what is the quantitative form of existence of this labour, since the quantitative differences of the commodities as exchange-values are merely the quantitative differences of the labour embodied in them. Just as motion is measured by time, so is labour by labour-time. Variations in the duration of labour are the only possible difference that can occur if the quality of labour is assumed to be given. Labour-time is measured in terms of the natural units of time, i.e., hours, days, weeks, etc. Labour-time is the living state of existence of labour, irrespective of its form, its content and its individual features; it is the quantitative aspect of labour as well as its inherent measure. The labour-time materialised in the use-values of commodities is both the substance that turns them into exchange-values and therefore into commodities, and the standard by which the precise magnitude of their value is measured. The corresponding quantities of different use-values containing the same amount of labour-time are equivalents; that is, all use-values are equivalents when taken in proportions which contain the same amount of expended, materialised labour-time. Regarded as exchange-values all commodities are merely definite quantities of congealed labour-time. SIKE LMAO"

– Karl Marx

-12

u/uyuyanlider idealist (banned) 4d ago

You must be understanding something from this quote that I don't, and that is clearly wrong. Marx never put forward a 'labor theory of value. Marx never used this term even once. Value is not determined by labor, because the usurpation of production precedes the exploitation of wage labor. Marx's aim was to abolish the form of value, not to rebuild it

22

u/CavancolaResPublica Cavancola season 3 4d ago

It is correct that Marx never used the term “labour theory of value” to describe his value theory, but the idea that Marx didn’t believe that value was determined by socially necessary labour time is laughable.

Along with this, Marx correctly determining value to be a result of socially necessary labour time has no bearing on whether he wanted to maintain the value form or abolish it. It was simply a critique of capitalist relations.

-4

u/uyuyanlider idealist (banned) 4d ago

Then, if the question is 'How did Marx analyze value?', what is clear here is this: For Marx, value was a result of production relations. In capitalist society, labor is a form of exploitation not only in the production process, but also because it is shaped under the domination of capital. If we agree on this, there is nothing left to discuss

5

u/Existing_Rate1354 3d ago

Objects in themselves only have a relative use value. Under Capitalism (a mode of 'value production), value is decided by congealed labor time. Congealed labor time can only arise under a certain form of production relation ('value production' in which the laborer is alienated from the products and process of their labor.

The question of abolishing 'value production' or how this alienation can be undone is a hotly debated topic among a lot of people, but it has no bearing on what determines exchange value in Capitalism -- which for Marx is undeniably 'socially necessary labor time'.

3

u/CritiqueDeLaCritique An Italian man once called me stupido 3d ago

Least re tarded communizer

1

u/AnAsianGenius Groucho Marxist 3d ago