when mutualists day they oppose profit what do they mean by it. they say cost is the limit of price. and how is labor cost determined?
They mean they idiotically believe in the labor theory of value.
They define “profit” as income from interest, dividends, land rent and god knows what else. Some of them extend the definition to entrepreneurial profit as well.
It’s a vague, wishy washy maze of arbitrary (often poorly thought out) rules. And it can’t function economically.
i read francois tremblay’s blog. he contradict’s himself on the spot. he condemnes profit motive and then says that the workers should get the profit. can someone explain this to me because my head is going to explode.
“They mean they idiotically believe in the labor theory of value.”
Let’s assume the LTV is correct. these people are not retarted, so i assume it is a pretty solid theory at least on the surface.
Let’s assume it isn’t (which is indeed the case.)
thats’s what I should tell to my literature teacher. seriously, tough
Tremblay is a weirdo. I can’t even take him seriously.
As for the LTV, it’s actually kind of moot. Mutualism isn’t pivotally based on the LTV, but on the silly notion that it’s wrong for owners of capital to get a share in the profits produced by it.
I can find no way to justify that unless the LTV is used.
isnt that suposedly because they are not putting labor hours for that profit, hence the LTV?
i guess marx’s social value theory makes more sense on it own terms. although i tried understanding it to no avail.
Anarcho-communists don’t believe in the labor theory of value, but hold the exact same exploitation theory.
In other words, one could deny that two paintings (of equal “labor hours”) will sell at the same price, but still believe that the person who lent the paint and paint brush has no right to any of the money made from selling it.
This is not to defend mutualism of course. But I don’t really think the LTV is the center of the debate.
Then, frankly, they’re guilty of stealing the concept.
ok so when josiah warren said that price gouging is cannibalism- how can we understand that? stuff to make the pizza costs 3 dollars, you can sell it for whatever price you want and claim that the labor costs are million dollars. how do you supposed to measure labor?
Obviously, Josiah Warren (not exactly a mutualist but probably close) was fanatically obsessed with the LTV. So if you’re talking solely about him then you have a point.
But mutualism as such doesn’t really seem to necessitate the labor theory of value. All it takes is the standard leftist spiel about “exploitation” and blah blah. I don’t see why it would require someone to obsess over price theory.
But what is the basis for the exploitation? There must be something upon that which is built the concept of exploitation.
But what is the basis for the exploitation?
See here:
http://infoshop.org/faq/secC2.html
Their exploitation theories are full of massive holes, but aren’t really dependent on the LTV. They’re just dependent on…well…ignorance.
They are dependent upon the LTV. Surplus value? LTV. Labor creates value? LTV. They’re doing everything they possibly can to avoid it looking like the LTV, while it in fact is the LTV. They are dishonest.
I love the mutualist rabbit hole. Occupancy and use is more mutualist fun.
They are dependent upon the LTV. Surplus value? LTV. Labor creates value? LTV. They’re doing everything they possibly can to avoid it looking like the LTV, while it in fact is the LTV. They are dishonest.
Saying that “labor creates value” is not the same as saying that “value is proportional to labor.” The exploitation theory can be (and has been) separated from theories of value, is all I’m pointing out.
Occupancy and use is more mutualist fun.
Hotels, roads and parking garages will all be loads of fun in teh mutualist-land! 
i still don’t understand how all this relates to how commodity prices are decided. after all whats the point of business if you dont make a profit?