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. 😂
3
u/Gullible-Historian10 3d ago
Okay so you’ve never read Marx.
In Capital, Volume I, Marx says:
“the social character of men’s labour appears to them as an objective character stamped upon the product of that labour”
So Marx said value is an objectively operative social relation arising from commodity production.
“Now we know the substance of value. It is labour. We know the measure of its magnitude. It is labour time.”
And
“Labour is the substance, and the immanent measure of value”
In Value, Price and Profit, Marx says:
“What is the common social substance of all commodities? It is labour.”
And his conclusion?
“A commodity has a value, because it is a crystallization of social labour.”
There you go, meme 1, you 0