I didn't say anything about labour theory of value. That's a whole other discussion. And why in that scenario did we not just work together? Why compete?

[–] huge_clock@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well the labour theory of value is where ‘surplus value’ comes from and is the theoretical underpinning of a lot of your argument.

Why didn’t we work together? Maybe we were on different sides of the planet or didn’t enjoy working together for many reasons. The point wasn’t that we weren’t working together. This was a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate that in this specific scenario the excess profits were the result of deploying capital. Even in communist societies part of the output that is generated is not wholly due to labour but due to the allocation of capital by the communist regime. For example in the USSR the mechanization of labour resulted in standard of living increases because labour without capital is of very low value. Capital without labour is also of very low value. A factory without workers would not work very well at all either. It’s the combined utilization of all the factors of production (Total factor productivity) that determines how much income can be generated in the economy. The larger the TFP the higher the wages. Economies with free markets have higher total favor productivity as the individual production decisions are dispersed among many business owners and workers rather than centralized in the hands of a bureaucratic elite.

[–] irmoz@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

Well the labour theory of value is where ‘surplus value’ comes from and is the theoretical underpinning of a lot of your argument.

LTV attacks pricing. Surplus value attacks wages. These are different discussions, dude.

Maybe we were on different sides of the planet or didn’t enjoy working together for many reasons.

You just keep having to fudge this hypothetical to make it make sense, eh?

This was a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate that in this specific scenario the excess profits were the result of deploying capital.

Bruh. Workers working by themselves to earn money for themselves isn't capitalist exploitation. Who is being employed, here? Wtf are you saying? This isn't wage labour.

Even in communist societies part of the output that is generated is not wholly due to labour but due to the allocation of capital by the communist regime.

If there is capital, it isn't communism. If there is a regime, it isn't communism. Please learn what communism is.

For example in the USSR

This is just too perfect.

Not communism.

the mechanization of labour resulted in standard of living increases because labour without capital is of very low value.

Labour without use is of no value. Did you not know that, and yet you have been talking about the LTV?

Are you about to make a "mud pie" argument?

Capital without labour is also of very low value.

Obviously. It is labour that creates value.

A factory without workers would not work very well at all either.

It wouldn't work whatsoever.

It’s the combined utilization of all the factors of production (Total factor productivity) that determines how much income can be generated in the economy.

Don't move the goalposts. I thought we were discussing value, not income?

Do you not know the difference? Is that why you think LTV is relevant to wages, rather than products?

The larger the TFP the higher the wages.

This is not a 1:1 correlation. The wages are determined by the whims of the owner, market forces, and any laws regarding minimums, overtime etc, not any rational calculation.

Economies with free markets have higher total favor productivity as the individual production decisions are dispersed among many business owners and workers rather than centralized in the hands of a bureaucratic elite.

Decisions in fact are managed by a bureaucratic elite. Capitalists. And productivity is a misleading figure, as the vast majority of the wealth created by it is siphoned by those very same capitalists.