CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:42
Arguments:41
Total Votes:60
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
  (33)

Debate Creator

Amarel(4792) pic



You can’t defend Marxism if you can’t defend labor theory. Nom & FM can’t

Add New Argument
2 points

Nom & FM can’t

Well, you seem to have made your mind up already, without even asking us. I'd say that wins us the argument by default, on account of the fact that you are making shit up before we've even started.

Amarel(4792) Clarified
1 point

I repeatedly invited you to my other debate on the matter to weigh in. You ignored multiple invitations. I wanted to put “won’t wven try” but it cut it off. Since neither of you have demonstrated any ability to defend LT, I went with Can’t”. If I could I would correct it to “FM can’t and Nom won’t even try.”

1 point

Tell me what labour theory is and if what you say isn't total bullshit I'll give you the argument you so desperately crave.

Amarel(4792) Clarified
1 point

Define it how you wish. Just be sure to articulate your definition. .

Sherlock-(102) Disputed
1 point

First of all Marx was a materialist, he did not like social constructs just as I don't like them. That being said Marx actually did not believe in value and his theory doesn't even apply to communism. The labour theory of value applies to capitalism and early stages of Marxist socialism.

The theory is premised on the fact that putting labour into something increases it's value and also makes a resource available to be turned into a commodity. Labour does not actually determine the "base value" of a resource but turning a resource into a commodity is done through labour and turning resources such as metal into a household appliance for example is done through labour and changes the value. This is less subjective than the alternative theory because the "value" of something is determined by it's actual properties, as in a hunk of metal is less "valuable" than a toaster, and to create a toaster work needs to be done. Just as work must be done to mine and purify metal ore. Value is inherently subjective, but the material properties are not. It is labour that makes a material available to economic activity and it is labour that changes the material properties and structure of various materials into something which has utility. Therefor the Marxist labour theory is an attempt to make value corrospond to objective reality.

Supply and demand does not alter the material properties of something, so under your theory there is no anchor of objectivity and prices are much more arbitrary. That is to say, it has nothing to do with what something physically is or what can be done with it, just how much you're willing to pay for it and how much someone can get away with charging. In the labour theory of value there is a "potential value" and "base value" and labour is what increases that value and makes that value available to the market, therefore in order for value to mean anything labour must be involved. Once again "value" is actually entirely subjective but the point of Marx's version of the labour theory is that labour is what provides you with everything that has value and therefor should be considered as root of value in the economy rather than leaving it entirely up to subjectivity and market fluctuations.

Side note: Adam Smith created the original labour theory of value and Marx basically created his own version.

All increase in value/utility (materialistically speaking) and economic expression of value is created by labour, therefor beorgiosie exploit labour to steal value they didn't produce. The beorgiosie are profiting simply by "owning" the means of producing value but they typically do not produce that which has value. This why capitalism is fundamentally immoral and entails theft. In early socialism, you are payed according to what you produce, in communism and other forms of advanced socialism it typically follows the motto "to each according to his ability, to each according to his need". That is a fancy way of saying that in full communism you won't have to pay for anything and money won't exist, only resources and the use of resources.

Jody(886) Disputed
0 points

Tell me what labour theory is and if what you say isn't total bullshit

The usual tactic I see , anything that doesn’t fit your narrative is bullshit .....naturally

I'll give you the argument you so desperately crave.

That will be a first , bet you’ll fly into a tantrum first

Amarel(4792) Clarified
1 point

I wish you hadn’t posted this. You’ve now given him an entire thread to pull rather than leaving him to articulate and defend his position.

outlaw60(14189) Disputed Banned
0 points
Sherlock-(102) Disputed
0 points

Every post you make is like stage 4 terminal ass cancer.

.

You can't defend Marxism regardless of any other variables or exponents...

Sherlock-(102) Disputed
1 point

You can't defend Marxism regardless of any other variables or exponents...

How does it feel to be stuck in the past rather than shaping the future?

Amarel(4792) Disputed
1 point

How does it feel to be stuck in the past rather than shaping the future?

The Marginal Revolution occurred in the late 19th Century. Marx was just in time to be immediately outdated.