This analysis completely ignores the fact that the labour theory of value places a secondary emphasis on supply and demand as well as its primary emphasis on labour, meaning that your examples are completely worthless as an object with no demand, such as the "completely useless product" defined above would have no value under the labour theory of value because there would be no demand ascribed to it.
Marx himself acknowledges this in the first chapter of Capital:
"Lastly, nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value".
Thank you for this comment, because it points out something I should have included, namely the way those who support the labour theory of value weasel out of it as soon the theory is seriously challenged. If there is a secondary emphasis on supply and demand within the theory, then that immediately negates the theory from a Marxist perspective. If value depends on demand, as you suggest, which is dependent on what human beings want versus what they don't want (or at least, want less), then you cannot link the value of things directly to labour. Just bringing supply and demand into the argument means by definition that there is a lot more to value than simply labour. Which means the theory doesn't work. No reasonable person is suggesting that labour is never a part of a good or service's value - that would be insane. For instance, if I have a great business idea, nothing will come of it unless I work hard to get the business started, or try and sell the idea to someone else. The point here is that if labour is simply one element of what may make something valuable, then Marx's analysis of almost everything falls apart from there.
There is no "weaselling out". Marx's entire theory of value incorporated supply, demand, and inherent usefulness from the start. It is entirely ideologically consistent to be a proponent of labour theory of value while also recognising that only items that are actually useful or desired have intrinsic value. Marx recognised this. Marxists recognise this. It is a key component of socialist economic theories as it is the capitalistic economic theories such as those posited by Adam Smith that Marx burrowed heavily from.
The fact you didn't talk about this recognition, despite it being one of the most important components of LTV, indicates that you either purposefully omitted discussions of supply and demand from your critique because it invalidates your argument, or you didn't know said recognition of supply and demand exists among Marxists because you fundamentally don't understand the labour theory of value.
Either way it's poor practice to write ideological critiques about ideas that you're either knowingly misrepresenting or don't understand. It's also absolutely fine to admit that you were wrong, if the latter is the case, instead of doubling down on your misunderstanding of this theory.
The idea of creating value by just working hard is typically used by billionaires as much as workers and unions. It's one of the key pillars of their self justification. You must move in very small circles if you see this just as a key idea for socialists. It's use by the right is far more impactful and troubling.
This analysis completely ignores the fact that the labour theory of value places a secondary emphasis on supply and demand as well as its primary emphasis on labour, meaning that your examples are completely worthless as an object with no demand, such as the "completely useless product" defined above would have no value under the labour theory of value because there would be no demand ascribed to it.
Marx himself acknowledges this in the first chapter of Capital:
"Lastly, nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value".
Thank you for this comment, because it points out something I should have included, namely the way those who support the labour theory of value weasel out of it as soon the theory is seriously challenged. If there is a secondary emphasis on supply and demand within the theory, then that immediately negates the theory from a Marxist perspective. If value depends on demand, as you suggest, which is dependent on what human beings want versus what they don't want (or at least, want less), then you cannot link the value of things directly to labour. Just bringing supply and demand into the argument means by definition that there is a lot more to value than simply labour. Which means the theory doesn't work. No reasonable person is suggesting that labour is never a part of a good or service's value - that would be insane. For instance, if I have a great business idea, nothing will come of it unless I work hard to get the business started, or try and sell the idea to someone else. The point here is that if labour is simply one element of what may make something valuable, then Marx's analysis of almost everything falls apart from there.
There is no "weaselling out". Marx's entire theory of value incorporated supply, demand, and inherent usefulness from the start. It is entirely ideologically consistent to be a proponent of labour theory of value while also recognising that only items that are actually useful or desired have intrinsic value. Marx recognised this. Marxists recognise this. It is a key component of socialist economic theories as it is the capitalistic economic theories such as those posited by Adam Smith that Marx burrowed heavily from.
The fact you didn't talk about this recognition, despite it being one of the most important components of LTV, indicates that you either purposefully omitted discussions of supply and demand from your critique because it invalidates your argument, or you didn't know said recognition of supply and demand exists among Marxists because you fundamentally don't understand the labour theory of value.
Either way it's poor practice to write ideological critiques about ideas that you're either knowingly misrepresenting or don't understand. It's also absolutely fine to admit that you were wrong, if the latter is the case, instead of doubling down on your misunderstanding of this theory.
🤷♂️ A rather dumb explanation of a political theory. Look up socialism in a dictionary and have another run at it.
Go on then, smartarse - tell me what you think socialism is.
The idea of creating value by just working hard is typically used by billionaires as much as workers and unions. It's one of the key pillars of their self justification. You must move in very small circles if you see this just as a key idea for socialists. It's use by the right is far more impactful and troubling.
I'm looking forwards to a Corbyn-Sultana/Polanski govt so I can claim my free UBI. I want it, and I want it now.
Oh, I forgot. Nothing ever stays free in a socialist govt.