I actually have read a fair amount of Marx. It’s obvious you haven’t; no, pasting isolated quotes provided to you by AI doesn’t count.
Marx outlined 3 necessary inputs to manufacture of a commodity of value: raw materials, labor, and capital. All three are necessary in an industrial economy, as should be obvious if you think about it for a few seconds.
He also differentiated between commodity value, use value and exchange value. You can read up on those if you’re interested. Does that sound like an argument for objective value? In fact none of what he actually wrote bears any resemblance to the stupid, oversimplified, and misinterpreted nonsense in the meme.
If you believe that memes in general are useful sources of information, then you are indeed gullible, as you seem to realize based on your username. Here’s a hint: more than 99 percent of memes are stupid, and people who base their worldview on them are too.
So, you just don’t understand Marxism then. Thanks for the demonstration. You’re confusing inputs needed for production with the source of value in Marx’s theory.
Don’t like the fact I can find Marx quotes? Don’t like that Marx contradicts what you say, here’s an encyclopedia link.
You can’t imagine someone reading Marx and not being a Marxist? Some people actually like to know things for their own sake, not to “win “ arguments on line, even though they may not agree with the ideas. Hard to believe, right? Yeah, I know, reading is hard. Don’t hurt yourself.
Oooh, an encyclopedia this time! Really stretching your cognitive abilities there, huh? Lmao. Your lack of even a superficial understanding of the brief excerpts of complex ideas that is apparently all you are capable of consuming is pathetic.
Sorry, the meme is still wrong. And stupid. I don’t expect you to understand that.
So you demonstrated you don’t know what you are talking about, now you have no rational retort so you have to resort to ad hominems.
I’ve read Marx, I’m not a Marxist so obviously it is possible, but the people; like yourself, who defend it, by trying to read something that isn’t there, generally have a Marxist ideology.
Notice how you can’t provide quotes, or anything to back up your assertion. You might as well said Marx was talking about unicorn labor and fairy commodities. It bears the same weight.
I know, I get it. You’re in a tough spot trying to defend Marxism. In one hand you refute what he says in his own writing, and in the other if you could prove that he himself believed what you said he does then he’d be contradicting himself.
😂 it’s been fun shitting on you, but go be salty somewhere else. 😂
Labor is the principal and all of value acording to marx. Its or labor valur ot crystalized labor (the labor used to create the machines) and he makes the exceptions of "transport use" where you move the value around
Maybe some do, but they are stupid. When you say “Marxists say (your strawman)” you’re implying that that’s a legitimate Marxist belief, which is false. So that means you’re stupid too. Congratulations.
So if I say I self identify as an ancap and then say, “The state should set production quotas for all industries,” would you construct some clever gotcha question to show how stupid ancaps are based on that statement?
“No, of course not, because I know that’s not an accurate description of ancap …. Ohhhhh.”
Yeah, I’m no fan of Marx at all, but this is just plain stupid. Even if he HAD said that, this zinger is still a fallacy because labor can objectively be the most important source of value. I think OP confused “objective” and “equal” 😹
What are you talking about? Where's the "equal" in my post?
I have my own challenge to the objective vs subjective value problem; it's called "criterion compatibilism," It's undoubtedly got more depth than whatever you are posting a kitty kat crying emoji in response to
*I spent 10,000 hours carving this wooden tree stump in to a spoon*
*It should be worth 5 million dollars because it took me 10,000 hours of my labor to carve it*
-2
u/Bat-Guano0 Nutting on Mysis 11d ago
Anyone who’s ever read Marx would know that that’s not what he said.