5 ms·

when marxists say "exploitation" it's just a mathematical fact, not a value judgement. it just means that workers, systemically (that is, it doesn't make a clai

when marxists say "exploitation" it's just a mathematical fact, not a value judgement. it just means that workers, systemically (that is, it doesn't make a claim about any individual worker), don't get ownership over the full value that they produce. this must be true if you really think about it, otherwise there would be no reason to own a company that you aren't also a normal worker in

MichaelZuo 3y ago
No, it's not zero sum, it's possible to destroy value, i.e. 1+1 could equal less than 2. And it's also possible to create value, i.e. 1+1 could equal more than 2. In the extreme case even literal bars of gold can become worthless after a few seconds of 'work', e.g. if someone throws them into an active volcano. After which no human individual or group would derive anything from it.
- deadfoxygrandpa 3y ago
  that's not "socially necessary labor", so the labor theory of value doesn't have anything to say about something like that
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    Then it sounds like a pretty dumb theory.
    - deadfoxygrandpa 3y ago
      how much of a typical capitalist economy is based on the throwing gold into a volcano industry?
      - MichaelZuo 3y ago
        How would I know? I don't have insight into every bar of gold on Earth. For a practically possible scenario I think it definitely raises questions whenever a theory flat out ignores it.
        esarbe 3y ago
        It's practically possible to throw the Earth into the sun. I doubt that there's any economic theory that spends any thought on this "practically possible scenario". But it's good that questions are raised. Raising questions is always good.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        > It's practically possible to throw the Earth into the sun. Source? From my understanding that's by definition impossible for humans circa 2023.
        esarbe 3y ago
        It's impossible for humans nowadays, but it is practically possible; one only needs enough delta v, which requires energy. There's certainly enough energy in existence to throw the Earth into the sun. Yes, obviously this is absurd. But I'm just extrapolating your argument to make an argument: It is silly to expect any economic theory to account for throwing the Earth into the sun. But its also silly to expect an economic theory to account for other absurd behavior, like throwing gold into a volcano. Every economic theory relies on simplified models of human behavior. Humans behaving irrational is not usually part of those models; the ways humans can behave irrationally is infinite - not useful for a model.
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        Is this written by a bot? If not, have you completely misunderstood how easily this can be accomplished? Raising an example that is not practically possible at all, by any dictionary definition of 'practical', such as moving the entire Earth into the Sun, and trying to confirm it meets that criteria by saying maybe in the very distant future it could be is just bizarre. The latter is literally dozens, if not hundreds, of orders of magnitude harder to accomplish than the former. So even in some incredibly distant future where that would become 'possible', it would still not be practical in any sense that HN readers of 2023 would understand it.
drekipus 3y ago
> don't get ownership over the full value that they produce. But the value is subjective. A few lines of code is not valuable to me, no matter what context, so I am happy to trade it for a salary. If I dig a hole for someone, someone agrees to pay me $50 for it. I value the $50 more than the cost of labour to do the hole. Me making holes is no value to me, and infact it's a good workout, so if they didn't pay me to do it I'd just go to the gym and do the same movement for free. To them, it's probably the start of a fence or a clothesline or something that solves a real problem for them. Much more valuable than $50
- deadfoxygrandpa 3y ago
  on an individual level maybe it's (partially) subjective, but marx is concerned with the systemic level. he's talking about the industries which really drive the economy i don't think there's ever been a successful attempt to reduce macroeconomics down to the microeconomics level. basically, the system as a whole cannot be calculated by summing up a model of all the individual behaviors, it doesnt work that way. there have been several broadly successful macroeconomic models steve keen talks a lot about this same type of stuff and he's very much not a marxist, if you want a different perspective on it
  - drekipus 3y ago
    Ty for the recommendation

MichaelZuo 3y ago

No, it's not zero sum, it's possible to destroy value, i.e. 1+1 could equal less than 2. And it's also possible to create value, i.e. 1+1 could equal more than 2. In the extreme case even literal bars of gold can become worthless after a few seconds of 'work', e.g. if someone throws them into an active volcano. After which no human individual or group would derive anything from it.

deadfoxygrandpa 3y ago
that's not "socially necessary labor", so the labor theory of value doesn't have anything to say about something like that
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  Then it sounds like a pretty dumb theory.
  - deadfoxygrandpa 3y ago
    how much of a typical capitalist economy is based on the throwing gold into a volcano industry?
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      How would I know? I don't have insight into every bar of gold on Earth. For a practically possible scenario I think it definitely raises questions whenever a theory flat out ignores it.
      - esarbe 3y ago
        It's practically possible to throw the Earth into the sun. I doubt that there's any economic theory that spends any thought on this "practically possible scenario". But it's good that questions are raised. Raising questions is always good.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        > It's practically possible to throw the Earth into the sun. Source? From my understanding that's by definition impossible for humans circa 2023.
        esarbe 3y ago
        It's impossible for humans nowadays, but it is practically possible; one only needs enough delta v, which requires energy. There's certainly enough energy in existence to throw the Earth into the sun. Yes, obviously this is absurd. But I'm just extrapolating your argument to make an argument: It is silly to expect any economic theory to account for throwing the Earth into the sun. But its also silly to expect an economic theory to account for other absurd behavior, like throwing gold into a volcano. Every economic theory relies on simplified models of human behavior. Humans behaving irrational is not usually part of those models; the ways humans can behave irrationally is infinite - not useful for a model.
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        Is this written by a bot? If not, have you completely misunderstood how easily this can be accomplished? Raising an example that is not practically possible at all, by any dictionary definition of 'practical', such as moving the entire Earth into the Sun, and trying to confirm it meets that criteria by saying maybe in the very distant future it could be is just bizarre. The latter is literally dozens, if not hundreds, of orders of magnitude harder to accomplish than the former. So even in some incredibly distant future where that would become 'possible', it would still not be practical in any sense that HN readers of 2023 would understand it.

drekipus 3y ago

> don't get ownership over the full value that they produce. But the value is subjective. A few lines of code is not valuable to me, no matter what context, so I am happy to trade it for a salary. If I dig a hole for someone, someone agrees to pay me $50 for it. I value the $50 more than the cost of labour to do the hole. Me making holes is no value to me, and infact it's a good workout, so if they didn't pay me to do it I'd just go to the gym and do the same movement for free. To them, it's probably the start of a fence or a clothesline or something that solves a real problem for them. Much more valuable than $50

deadfoxygrandpa 3y ago
on an individual level maybe it's (partially) subjective, but marx is concerned with the systemic level. he's talking about the industries which really drive the economy i don't think there's ever been a successful attempt to reduce macroeconomics down to the microeconomics level. basically, the system as a whole cannot be calculated by summing up a model of all the individual behaviors, it doesnt work that way. there have been several broadly successful macroeconomic models steve keen talks a lot about this same type of stuff and he's very much not a marxist, if you want a different perspective on it
- drekipus 3y ago
  Ty for the recommendation