Cannot point my finger on it, but for some reason im convinced that you speaking either with hs kid who just did his basic econ book or freshman. Likely hs kid
It just has than...figurative scent of ink and paper of someone who just did their first steps in topic and not yet learned thinking by themselves in field, just parroting things
I majored math in uni and had a few classes overlapping with the finance and economics type majors, and so many were like that. Take an introductory micro-economics class and think they can fully explain why communism can't work. The same people would ask the professor if they could have a formula sheet when the hardest math on the exam was like a basic derivative.
Even as an early teenager I could tell that capitalism obviously cannot work.
And that religion is obviously bullshit.
And that racism is idiotic.
And that nationalism harms humanity.
And that the wars of the US and other crimes against humanity aren't acceptable.
And I did all of that in a deeply conservative, US-bootlicking shithole country.
It's not fucking hard.
Of course, I'm even better educated and can explain things more clearly today but I feel like people who are capitalist, racist, sexist, religious, nationalist, or pro-American are deeply stupid on a more profound level than just ignorance. It takes either extreme levels of ignorance (that are practically impossible for anyone with a smartphone to achieve) or a willful hatred for innocent others to support these evil things.
Sadly sounds about right. Speaking from own experience back in the day(around 03'-05') in first years at engineering specialty basic/supplementary courses were crazy lib propaganda. And sadly very, ridiculously effective one.
/venting
To add some context, when second gulf war were going on there were legit "discussions", including professors in cafeterias or even during lectures with sentiment that we "by participating in coalition we bringing to those people ideals of democracy by justified and necessary force, so they can be better from now on after learning proper ways". To this day i physically shudder remembering it. Probably gonna remember that inhumane shit with shame even on deathbed.
Yup, just reminded me about a professor I had. It was a class on insurance, like the history and all different types and how they function (health, life, property). I remember when we were on the topic of health insurance I talked about how the US system is fucked, and we could do better. At the time I remember using like Nordic nations as an example (before I realized their role in global imperialism, and honestly their healthcare system is much better) and his rebuttal was that it only works in those nations because they are more homogeneous with a common culture.
Didn't push back on it much at the time, but like wtf does that even mean? Is it just racism? Like how does diversity effect how we pay for healthcare? It's not like people want different things in that department. If you're sick or injured you need medical attention, and if not still regular check ups. It just has a vibe of "I don't wanna pay for them", whoever that might be.
Probably the latter. A lot of kids imagine they are going to be really successful "entrepreneurs" because they haven't had to engage with the real economy yet.
Also, the belief that Karl Marx didn't know about supply and demand is pretty funny:
"Supply and demand regulate nothing but the temporary fluctuations of market prices. They will explain to you why the market price of a commodity rises above or sinks below its value, but they can never account for the value itself. Suppose supply and demand to equilibrate, or, as the economists call it, to cover each other. Why, the very moment these opposite forces become equal they paralyze each other, and cease to work in the one or other direction. At the moment when supply and demand equilibrate each other, and therefore cease to act, the market price of a commodity coincides with its real value, with the standard price round which its market prices oscillate. In inquiring into the nature of that VALUE, we have therefore nothing at all to do with the temporary effects on market prices of supply and demand. The same holds true of wages and of the prices of all other commodities"
I have a BA in economics (well it was mixed with CS, but anyways), and yes that type of person is some CEO's relative, one time I had to argue that no people don't have the same opportunities because poorer districts have lower quality schools and that person refused to believe me and said it was the same because "they could study the same subjects after they have finished high school"
We make jokes about how capital vol 1 spends alot of time on 20 yards of linen but it makes the point perfectly well how materials already have an inherent value even if you don't use it.
I could not imagine living my life believing the labor i do is worthless. I know im getting fucked over at work but if i showed up thinking nothing i do is valuable because nobody wants what i produce (which is objectively untrue) i think i would actually end my shit.
Also a warm pillow is stupid idea, however i woukd pay out the ass for a permanently cold pillow.
“You would be altogether mistaken in fancying that the value of labour or any other commodity whatever is ultimately fixed by supply and demand. Supply and demand regulate nothing but the temporary fluctuations of market prices. They will explain to you why the market price of a commodity rises above or sinks below its value, but they can never account for the value itself. Suppose supply and demand to equilibrate, or, as the economists call it, to cover each other. Why, the very moment these opposite forces become equal they paralyze each other, and cease to work in the one or other direction. At the moment when supply and demand equilibrate each other, and therefore cease to act, the market price of a commodity coincides with its real value, with the standard price round which its market prices oscillate. In inquiring into the nature of that VALUE, we have therefore nothing at all to do with the temporary effects on market prices of supply and demand. The same holds true of wages and of the prices of all other commodities.“ - Marx in Value, Price and Profit.
If supply matches demand, we are left with the base state of the commodity. This point is what we study and is a result of (exchange-)value. When supply increases, the price may dip below this value (there are quite notable counter tendencies, an obvious one is when the supply is monopolised). And when demand rises, the price may rise about (this may happen even without demand rising as a matter of fact, a mere glance at the cosmetics industry will wash away all of this).
I mean just by saying that there's no value inherent in labor implies that the value will come from the completed product which should mean that the labor is entitled to all that it created. I don't think dipshit thought this one through.
trying to have discussions with libs about marxist economic concepts is the most soul sucking experience possible. Firstly they assert their own definitions for words and do so out of pure vibes or whatever they are used to and absolutely refuse to consider anything else. Once I was speaking to a lib who was asserting that value and price were the same and just went 'nuh uh' when I tried explaining that Marxist theories use different words for different concepts. "Uhhh you cant just redefine words dude you cant expect everyone to conform to your idea of reality" like man imagine having your head so far up your ass you cant accept the fact that definitions of words arent static and the entire point of theories is to define things in different ways. He went on to give several 'debunkings' of the labor theory of value where he just kept using the definitions he himself created to show how they are wrong. Any attempt to explain how they dont know anything about Marx results in them plugging their ears and running away and just going 'nuh uh.' Liberals lack any critical thinking whatsoever
Isn't it also capitalist praxis that there's a market for everything which then contradicts labor begets no value. I mean, there are people out there that will buy an egirl's bath water, and if that egirl then invested in decorating the jar, they'd increase the price to make up for the increased time and labor, thereby increasing the value through labor. That can also be strung together by the fact that some markets are propped up by "whales" like most video game live subscription models. It seems like the only thing preventing labor from producing value is advertising.
It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.
Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.
Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration...The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation.
I put the argument into Deepseek. The guy isn't 100% wrong on the useless commodity part, a commodity does still need to be considered useful for labour to create value. Though value is still made from labour.
The question touches on a fundamental issue in political economy: the relationship between labor, value, and the usefulness (or "use-value") of a commodity. Let’s break this down using Marxist and classical economic perspectives.
1. Labour and Value in Marxist Theory
In Marx's labor theory of value, the value of a commodity is determined by the socially necessary labor time required to produce it. However, this only applies to goods that have a use-value—that is, they fulfill some human want or need.
If a commodity is completely useless (like your example of "pointless bottles of air"), it has no use-value, and thus no exchange-value (no market demand).
Labour expended on producing something worthless does not create (economic) value, even if it took time and effort.
2. The Problem with "Worthless" Commodities
If a factory produces something nobody wants:
The labor spent is wasted from an economic standpoint.
The product cannot be sold, meaning it has no exchange-value.
Capital invested in its production is lost (a misallocation of resources).
3. Why Would This Happen?
Capitalist production is driven by profit, not just labor. If a capitalist misjudges demand (e.g., producing useless bottles of air), they suffer losses. This is a market failure, not a failure of labor itself.
4. Labour Alone Does Not Guarantee Value
Labour creates value only when it produces something socially useful.
Useless labour (like digging and refilling holes) is unproductive in economic terms, even if it is physically strenuous.
5. Broader Implications
This is why socialist planning (in theory) prioritizes useful production—labor should be directed toward things society actually needs, rather than wasteful or speculative production.
Conclusion
Labour does not automatically create value if the output is worthless. Value arises from socially necessary labor producing useful goods. If a product has no use-value (like pointless bottles of air), the labor expended on it does not translate into economic value.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD!
SUBSCRIBE ON YOUTUBE
SUPPORT THE BOYS ON PATREON
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.