LTV is about the value contribution of labour to the production of commodities, ultimately reducible to the subsistence requirements of that labour. It's entirely from the supply side and can be thought of as embodied labour. I've had a very tiring day at work so won't go into more detail now, but LTV doesn't address perceived utility or demand side "contributions" to value as they are not materially grounded.

[–] Prunebutt@feddit.de 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I wouldn't have been able to write it this consise, but that's kind of one thing I wanted to point towards in my original comment.

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

But labour's contribution to value and - crucially - the irreducible subsistence requirements of that labour provide the only materially grounded analysis. They are not culturally bound, that's the strength of LTV.

[–] Prunebutt@feddit.de 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Doesn't that only take the economics of people into account that are close to this irreducible subsistence requirement?

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It provides a materialist foundation for further analyses that would otherwise be absent. It's extremely useful for the precise reason that it is objectively true, while demand side economic models are ideologically based.

An LTV analysis begins with such workers because they are the original contributors of surplus value that is appropriated by the ownership class.

I recommend reading about it in more detail if you're interested, I'm not certain but I think it is addressed in Chapter 6 of Capital 1. I don't mean to be rude but I really did have a tiring day at work and you seem to be clutching at straws a little with some of your comments.

[–] Prunebutt@feddit.de -1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

An LTV analysis begins with such workers because they are the original contributors of surplus value that is appropriated by the ownership class.

And what's that reasoning, if not based on ideology?

I really suggest watching unlearning egonomics video on the matter. I'm a leftist and mostly agree with Marx, but the LTV is a model and should be treated as such.

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I believe you have fundamentally misunderstood LTV. It's a observational model rooted in objective, material reality - hence historical materialism.

I generally educate myself by reading, rather than watching YouTube. I'd prefer not to continue this conversation.

[–] Prunebutt@feddit.de -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think you've misunderstood what a model is.

I generally educate myself by reading, rather than watching YouTube. I'd prefer not to continue this conversation.

Thank youfor the ableist, condescending comment. /s

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

no worries fam

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Because at its core, a commodity is comprised of natural material and the labor that transforms it into something with use value. It isn't an ideological statement to say a commodity is only a commodity by the labor that creates it, it's just a statement of fact.

[–] Prunebutt@feddit.de 1 points 11 months ago

Reducing value to nothing but commodities is already a very ideologically charged act. We were talking about value before. The value of commodities is only a subset of what counts as value.