For #Vaushites who slogged through the LTV discussion today and got lost, this is a lecture series I really like on Marxist foundational stuff: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC5GAeBZerO9Rlj5HDcfGEVcqXtaULrNe

Robert Paul Wolff (not that Wolff) is a Marxist Anarchist Kantian professor, and he has a really easy way of explaining things. He likes telling stories. Not nearly as dry as David Harvey. I think most people would be able to argue LTV competently after watching RPW's 7 ep series. #Vaush #Marx #LTV

Are there any other A-7 fans on Mastodon? This is my favorite Naval aircraft. I joined the Navy 11 years too late, they retired this airframe when I was in first grade! I supposed I could have joined the Hellenic Air Force, who retired theirs in 2014. Give me a shout out if you’re a fan of the SLUF! #A7E #corsairII #LTV #NavalAviation #USNavy

I've seen this weird stream of shallow criticism coming out lately in regards to the labor theory of value some even going so far as to say we (ie Leftists) need to study Austrians like Heyek. I want to address some of this.

The LTV does not say labor by default is valuable.

This was one of the main flaws of Smith's (yes Adam Smith) LTV.

Riccardo once critiqued Smith in regards to this on aging wine. Marx made a contribution here and stated that the nature of the goods being worked is important when determining where value is being produced.

If one simply digs a hole the dirt that comes out of the hole is not valuable REGARDLESS of labor inputs. However if one digs a hole and finds a vain of gold the labor becomes valuable on the basis of the nature of gold.

As is the case with the winemaker.

This isn't some fucking brilliant gotcha. It doesn't really take a super lot of effort to understand that digging holes isn't somehow valuable just cuz labor. That was never the point. It's bad faith, ignorance, or both plain and simple.

Secondly the LTV is not about determining the exchange value of goods. This as far as I can tell is just a blatant misunderstanding of Marx.

What the LTV is about is how value is generated. In short, labor + nature of goods. SINCE this is the case all that value generated Should be returned to the worker NOT the Capitalist who simply owns shit because they are not creating the value. Simple.

What Marx had to say in regards to EXCHANGE VALUE is that the rate of profit would fall over time thus trending more towards a natural value.

This is because Marx was a progressive and believed society would evolve in that direction over time NOT that the LTV determines exchange value or price.

Lastly and most bluntly the collapse of Marxian states has absofuckinglutely nothing to do with the LTV.

The large majority of production in Marxian states was under the model of State Capitalism.

They did not involve the LTV for whatever reason they had good or bad.

If workers are not directly owning and operating the means of production surplus value will be exploited by wages or by capital accumulation.

In either case the STATE was taking the value of their labor.

This is a complete and utter doing away with and rejection of the LTV.

Frankly I'd argue that this is a vindication of the LTV due to the ultimate collapse of most Marxian states though there are other factors not related to economics people have written tomes on.

#Anarchism #LaborTheoryOfValue #LTV #Marx #AdamSmith

Come to think of it, I think the #neoablitionism criticism of Marx's #LTV could equally be leveled at Universal Benefit AKA Citizen's Income AKA #UBI.

Which maybe explains why I feel slightly uneasy about the framing of #UBI.

We need #CitizensOwnership not #CitizensIncome

A point argued here by Charles Hugh Smith:

http://teamhuman.fm/episodes/ep-84-charles-hugh-smith-investing-in-community/

@mattcropp @Antanicus

#Abolitionism typically means, abolish slavery.

Possibly also a reference to #neoabolitionism in the sense #DavidEllerman used it? (Correct me if wrong.)

http://www.thestraddler.com/201715/piece2.php

You'll like it. An interesting moral argument for worker-ownership. New to me, heard through a #Coop MOOC earlier this year.

Essentially claims Marx's #LTV Labour Theory of Value took a wrong turn and became morally equivalent to merely advocating better terms for slavery (== employment).

@Antanicus @mattcropp