>>16781109
Haven't seen it but wouldn't an abundance economy be kind of shit anyway? Assuming AI gets to the point where it can do/produce anything to the point where your average retard can make it happen with a prompt. Wouldn't that just devalue everything down to the cost of the raw materials consumed to produce it? I also imagine storage space would become a serious fucking issue in the future when it comes to hosting online content, the sheer amount of stuff created would eat up server space crazy fast.

>>16781115
Yes.
Marx was unironically right about ultimately only human labor having (creating) value.
He was just too optimistic about conclusions.
The real implication is that there can not be great wealth without exploitation.
It's only a matter of whether you exploit local population (feudalism) or outsource it (colonialism).

>>16781115
The giant hole in your thinking is that you assume the people who "own" the technological infrastructure and natural resources will keep you around and just let you use "their" tech and "their" resources to gorge yourself on infinite slop. In reality we are now entering the more aggressive phase of culling the useless eaters. Engineered wars, engineered diseases, engineered starvation... how's that for "abundance", huh?

>>16781121
>Marx was unironically right about ultimately only human labor having (creating) value.
If he was right, how come this pants-on-head-retarded proposition is never reflected in any real-world dynamic?

>>16781153
?
It constantly is. You just don't understand what it means.

Coal underground is the same coal after it was mined.
Yet the latter is more valuable in monetary terms - why?
Because human labor was put into extracting it.

You may say:
>but people fight for oil, coal and other mineral deposits - this means they're valuable by themselves!
You see the word "fight"?
If there were undefended, uncontested lands rich with resources it would be basically free to claim them as your own.
But since there are already people there that consider that land as theirs and put a lot of effort into defending it it takes work to conquer them - warfare is labor too.

This is what is meant when it's said that value ultimately comes from human labor.

You're not paying for a product.
You're paying for labor that was put into conquering land containing resources needed to build it, political effort needed to maintain that land and keep it under your control, labor that was put into transporting resources, labor that was put into designing the product and finally labor that was put into building it.

>>16781157
The value of coal comes from the uses of coal. People don't care if the working class retards who procure it are paid 1 dollar an hour, 1 cent an hour, or if it's done by literal slave labor. They want cheap goodies. Especially middle-class """socialists""" whose entire lifestyle depends squarely and solely on cheap goodies.

>>16781159
Just because value comes from labor doesn't mean that people cannot be exploited.
Of course they can.
I don't see how one denies another.
In fact it's the primary factor behind exploitation - people enslave each other because that's where the wealth comes from.
Not machines, not technological progress, not beautiful land, but control over vast swaths of human labor.

>>16781165
>value comes from labor
Then home come this isn't reflected in any real-world dynamics?

>b-b-because muh exploitation
That's a full concession. Next!

>>16781157
Black people in Africa is the same Black People after it was enslaved.
Yet the latter is more valuable in monetary terms - why?
Because human labor was put into enslaving it.

Values comes from the labor of slavers.

NEETs in their basement is the same NEETs after being put to work.
Yet the latter is more valuable in monetary terms - why?
Because human labor was put into managing it.

Value comes from the labor of the managerial class.

Values comes from the labor of slave owners.

>>16781166
>I'm by my own admission constantly paying for labor
>Labor is the most costly part of any endeavour
>But labor has no value!
How I's supposed to argue with someone so deliberately obtuse?

>>16781168
Yes.
I see no wrong in your post.

>Values comes from the labor of slave owners.
So, you think that makes slavery and exploitation good?
Then I question your morality.

>>16781170
Whom are you quoting? Are you having an episode? I didn't say labor has no value. I simply refuted your assertion that the value of a product comes from labor by observing that the product is no less valuable if the working-class retards who procure it are paid nothing.

>>16781172
value comes from labor =/= every labor is equal =/= labor is properly compensated =/= theft is impossible =/= exploitation is impossible =/= slavery is impossible

>>16781171
>I see no wrong in your post.
In that case, you should feel right at home in this "capitalist" dystopia, because it operates exactly by your logic: "labor" is a resource that needs to be extracted from the human cattle. It's just like the coal you were talking about: who cares what this resource is theoretically worth, unless someone is willing to go through the trouble of extracting it? For this reason, by your own logic, the people who extract labor from you are those who generate value, so they're getting bonuses and buying yachts and mansions while you get jack squat just like Daddy Marx predicted should be the case. :^)

>>16781173
Notice how you've devolved into full-blown incoherent psychosis after having your Marxist fallacy empirically refuted. You can talk about "exploitation" all you like but the actual economic dynamics confirm my view and refute yours.

>>16781175
Value =/= good.
That's the whole point.
Capitalism extracting a lot of value from humans (arguably more than socialist systems) doesn't mean it's good.
Morality is what makes system good.
And capitalism is inherently immoral - because it's all about perfecting labor extraction to make the rich even richer at any cost, environment and people health and wellbeing be damned.

Morality is the key here.
To make people understand that you can't defend immoral behavior by just saying "free market has decided", or "at least it created a lot of value for the shareholders" like capitalism proponents do.

>>16781176
What views?
You haven't really said anything beyond total non-sequitur "people want cheap goods, so it means labor it worthless".

>>16781178
>capitalists are perfectly good marxists, they're just immoral
That means they're doubly good Marxists, because Marx explicitly rejected morality in favor of a brand of materialist fatalism, maintaining that there is neither basis nor reason to tell people what they "shall" do because the currents of history will set things straight. And they sure did set things straight, showing us where the value of labor comes from and rewarding those who extract it most effectively (protip: not communists). :^)

>>16781176
>the actual economic dynamics confirm my view
and the actual economic dynamics are what you already believe they are and you believe they are the way they seem to you because the actual economic dynamics confirm your view because what you already believe is what they are actually like. right?

>>16781181
It's very clear that you're suffering from a psychotic illness. It's a good thing we have capitalists rather than Marxists running things. At least they'll be efficient about removing you and your family from the gene pool when we get to forced eugenics, which you demonstrate to be absolutely necessary. :^)

>>16781182
If you read my first post, you would actually see that I'm not dogmatic and actually disagree with Marx conclusions.

>>16781184
>the actual economic dynamics are what you already believe
I believe what I observe with my own eyes, over the writings of some deformed, labor-stealing 19th century jew with a Messianic Complex. And what I see is that the value of a product has a significant degree of independence from the value of labor. Therefore it can't be that the value of the product comes from the labor.

>>16781186
You've already conceded that unexploited labor has the same value as un-mined coal (little to none, according to your theory). Exploitation is what generates value in your delusional system. You don't get to extol the virtues of this mindset on one hand and then claim its logical consequences are immoral on the other. Or rather, you can, because a real holocaust has never been tried. Yet. :^)

>>16781188
A blind man trusting his own eyes will not make them see any more

>>16781190
Concession accepted.

The value of a product has a significant degree of independence from the value of labor - this is a fact you've conceded.

Therefore it can't be that the value of the product comes from the labor - this is a straightforward logical conclusion. If the two were tied in the way babby's retarded economic theory asserts, worthless labor would imply worthless products, which is not the case.

>>16781121
Fuck off with your AI slop

>>16781157
>Coal underground is the same coal after it was mined.
>Yet the latter is more valuable in monetary terms - why?
>Because human labor was put into extracting it.
it's more valuable because it's in a more accessible area for an actor to use, not because a person moved it. moving coal from a box near a furnace into the mine doesn't increase its value despite the labor put into doing so
fundamentally value is just whatever someone thinks of it as, but typically that's based off the opportunity, what someone can do with it, not was was done with it

i'll wait until professor dave posts a rebut video to form my opinion

>>16781121
>Marx was unironically right about ultimately only human labor having (creating) value.
you niggas are saying in one thread that marx believes that economics is fake and the other you write this. which is it?

>>16781109
this dumb bitch honestly believes in sentient artificial intelligence, lol

>>16781247
have you met indians? if AI can outperform an indian, should we call it sentient?

>>16781176
When you grandfather has finished fucking your brains out through your ass he will be hungry and demand you feed him. Nothing is free

>>16781254
Instead of losing your mind with rage, how about you explain why your retarded Marxist theory of value doesn't play out in reality?

>>16781115
>ai will make more things than we can store
Maybe we either don't make shit we don't need, with or without AI. Or we use AI to solve the warehouse problem.
Checkmate Self-Storers.

This shit pisses me off. All these fucking academics live in a bubble fantasy, maybe if they had ever done some real work they would recognize their own bullshit.
The first fact is it takes humans to do shit like grow and harvest food. It takes humans to build houses and bridges and roads. Where humans can be replaced it has largely already been done. Industrial farming for example. The second fact is there is a point where using human labor is cheaper than using machines. We are already at that point for the most part. Many industries have processes which could easily be automated by machines, but they dont becasue having humans do the job is more profitable than building, powering, maintaining, replacing, and overseeing the machines.
These so called "AIs", will just add a few more refinements, take a few more jobs, but there will be no great over turning of what we already have. There will not be AI drones buzzing around picking your tomatoes or unclogging your toilet.

>>16781309
Your neo-Feudal capitaloon overlords don't care if it's cheaper to keep you around as a semi-starved slave laborer. They're going to exterminate you regardless and use the more "expensive" solution because "expensive" doesn't mean anything when they already own everything.

>>16781121
>>16781233
defunct information and perspectives, deliberate and circumstantial alike, with the purpose being to pull meaning and narrative at will. The point is control of agenda, to which we find has been utterly insufficient across all variables. Obsolete management systems. Scarcity is only as real as ineffeciency, of which it is not. Though certain parties pull all stops to make it so, for control, as with information. In other words, if powers that be were infallible and well intending, we wouldnt be needing to have debates with such a serious nature as to how we perservere and exist. And to what factors be external and undoing in all propensity, could be handled and addressed far more gracefully, if a consensus was considered beyond the trite at all scale. But the answer is not to tear things down or create a whole narrative of absurdity. They adhere to natural cues for symbolism. For as long as we remain in stagnant concepts, this place will stagnate regardless of a show.

>>16781309
They use humans because it is more profitable because the process is at some kind of automation limit. One big factor is the introduction of new technologies in sophisticated production lines. There is a huge challenge with this endeavor and the process of getting it into production ready state can simply be too much. Derating production for a month can be 500 million dollars in profit - don't even think of that revenue number.

>>16781121

That's not Marx, that's Ricardo.

And yeah Ricardo was right. But this was globally accepted until 1950..

>>16781274

That's not Marxist, that's literally classical economy.
What creates value then ? "Muh stock market" ?

>>16781192
I will now use my mental labour to write out 100101101 in decimal
1 + 0 + 4 + 8 + 32 + 256 = 301
Behold, it's worth something!!

>>16781121
>Can you do this job for me? I will pay
>YOU ARE LITERALLY COLONIZING ME RIGHT NOW

>>16781794
>What creates value then ?
Nothing "creates value". Value is a latent variable predicting what exchanges are likely to take place within an economic system, or any situation that can be formulated in terms of supply and demand. Value is an abstraction.

>>16782682
Well, yes.
Let's deconstruct what you said:
Why is a person paying another?
Why isn't he/she doing it himself/herself?
Why is the other person accepting the money?
Why doesn't he/she have his/her own money and tells him/her to fuck off?
It seems like one person here has an upper hand over the other in this hypothetical situation.

>>16782902
>Why isn't he/she doing it himself/herself?
He simply doesn't want.
>she
She? No one asked her at all. She can sit back down.

>Why is the other person accepting the money?
So he could buy something later.

>Why doesn't he/she have his/her own money and tells him/her to fuck off?
He does have his own money but he wants more of it.

>It seems like one person here has an upper hand over the other in this hypothetical situation.
Yes, He does. She's an obedient little housewife and no one asked her.

>>16781166
>Then home come this isn't reflected in any real-world dynamics?
Labor is the only cost of anything