2 ms·
that labor is essential to the production of value is, the LTV itself is not But that's silly. We see celebrities generating tremendous amounts of economic val
by chongli 6y ago
that labor is essential to the production of value is, the LTV itself is not
But that's silly. We see celebrities generating tremendous amounts of economic value by the "labour" of taking a selfie. To emphasize the labour is like focusing on the discarded cigarette butt instead of the thousands of acres of dry tinder it landed in.
Or ownership of sufficient quantity of the means of production and a lot less luck
People who own factories needed a lot of luck to get there as well. What real difference does it make whether I earn a billion dollars with a factory or a laptop? Or are they roughly equivalent in power and my laptop ought to be collectivized? That doesn't seem right.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> We see celebrities generating tremendous amounts of economic value by the "labour" of taking a selfie. Well, and their and various publicists and promoters labor that went into creating the environment for the reception of that selfie, and lots of other people's labor on the things that made the celebrity a celebrity, whether it's the labor that went into building a business that made the family name for someone like Paris Hilton, or the labor that went into making movies or TV shows for celebrities manufactured in Hollywood, or the labor that went into political campaigns for celebrities of political origin.
- chongli 6y agoBut all that same labour goes into aspiring celebrities that nobody cares about. Hollywood is full of them. So the value clearly does not come from the labour. Heck, even celebrities who have “made it” like Kevin Costner can still produce something like “Waterworld” while complete nobodies like JK Rowling can launch themselves to mega stardom by writing a novel while commuting on the train.