Labour Theory of Value Debunked: Subjective vs Objective—Viki 1999 Debunked

The labour theory of value is something grossly misunderstood by Marxists, @Viki1999 perfectly illustrates this by trying to correlate Marxist labour theory of value with subjective value. The truth is, when it comes to contrasting subjective theory of value to the labour theory of value it is subjective vs objective.

Karl Marx viewed prices as something endogenous rather than exogenous, meaning that the price could be determined simply by internal factors like labour time and quantity. Therefore, thinking that price was something knowable. Truth is, prices are exogenous, meaning that they are determined by the external factors from consumer demand. As I have explained numerous times before on the labour theory of value debunked, value is subjective, it is down to consumer preference.

Viki 1999 concedes later in this video that to oppose the subjective theory would be irrational, which is a concession to say that Marxism itself is irrational without her realising it. This is because Karl Marx labour theory of value was based on objective value. This was addressed by Ludwig Von Mises, he destroyed Karl Marx argument on the labour theory of value by asking more nuanced questions, such as: who is it valuable to; at what time is it valuable and in relation to what other given products.

Karl Marx did not take time preference into consideration, just because you want something now, doesn't mean to say your mind won't change.

Due to the length of Viki's argument, I left much of what I felt was less important out, in short, time preference was addressed but misunderstood by Viki 1999. She also fails to comprehend how businesses make profits and the basis of her entire argument on exploitation is deeply flawed, given the fact there is nothing more exploitative than the theory of communism being moneyless which would force workers to work for nothing and there are many difficult jobs out there in the economy.

As mentioned, if they are to have a price system and use money, where they getting the money from? There lies the problem, the only place they can turn to is the printing press, because without the private sector there is no other place they can turn to.

Her example of diamonds and tables proves she has no understanding of what determines value, it's not down to labour time or quantity, but in her concession on sand, it's down to the laws of supply and demand. Also, it's an overly simplistic view of not just resources, that she has, but of the products like tables, she doesn't comprehend there are many different types of wood to take into consideration, as well as, different colours of the products, styles, etc.

As I explained before in my video on the economic calculation problem, how then do you determine how much to produce of each and every single option you could think of?

Ben Shapiro hit the nail in the head which emphasises socialists don't understand economics, they don't understand their own ideology. Anyone who tells you that Karl Marx viewed value as something subjective are lying to you, unless of course they wish to tell you that Ludwig Von Mises didn't understand Karl Marx, but that's the problem, he more than understood his arguments, he tore them apart.

[ethangarrett]

A study of 10 countries, found no correlation between labour time and industry output(value):

[kingj]

I don’t think Vik has ever heard of diminishing marginal utility

[angelpotatogirl]

Viki saw your video and absolutely crushed you go watch it

It is on her 2nd channel Viki2000

[ZARK_]

perhaps Im dumb and don't just get the LTV, but can't it fall flat with the following thought experiment? To use the diamond example in the video, lets say im in a shop where two things are being sold, a regular rock, and a diamond. The LTV would have you believe you would be willing to pay more for the diamond because more labor went into it, not the fact that you personally desire and admire diamonds more than regular rocks. This is inutitively absurd, the only time I would be willing to pay more for a particular good than before is when my subjective demand for it increases, not simply when I learn more labor went into its production.

deep sea diamonds are not expensive because to get them workers need to perform very dangerous labor, workers are willing to perform dangerous labor because they already know (speculate technically) that the diamonds will be valuable. No one would risk their life diving into the ocean to get the diamonds without first believing the diamonds could be sold at a price that justifies the worker diving in the ocean.

[Seouldrift]

I know I've said North Korea vs South Korea a lot or (cold war) West Germany vs East Germany. But in this case I wonder which side made more money on a average basics.

[chocalatebearcub]

Did you read Karl Marx capital? I’m really interested in learning how to discredit it and want to know if that’s the best way to get started.

[footielad]

I love how at 16:53 'Viki 1999' said that Ben Shapiro's argument defining the Marxist view on labour is wrong, then she attempts to correct Ben Shapiro by defining value of hard labour which is in line with how Ben initially defined it. So she's essentially just confirmed Ben Shapiro's argument hahaha

[acestro]

Can you explain why people say communism has never ever been achieved? They say it’s stateless, classless, moneyless society but isn’t there still communism going on in the likes of North Korea and China? And I would also love to hear your thoughts on taxes? Income, property, spending etc.

[piotrr]

LTV speaks of relative prices not nominal. Both you and Vik are wrong

[wageslave]

If something is less scares it is easier to to obtain meaning less labour went into obtaining it. If something such as diamonds is more scared it is harder to obtain meaning more labour is needed to obtain it.

[imdebaws]

Socialism = State management of the economy
Keynesianism = State intervention in the economy
Laissez-faire Capitalism = no state intervention

[mikelly]

“By underpaying workers” 😂😂😂 Viki doesn’t understand like basic *basic* lemonade stand economics

[niksterrr]

Honestly, I can't stand Viki 1999's voice. Every word she says, it just makes me more angry at her. I get that she's Trans and all. But a lot of transwomen don't have an infuriating voice like her's.

[paganrevolutionary]

Tbh, you actually scored some good points.

[davidlewis]

i have been arguing with socialists for some time, and the amount of times the discussion turns into semantics about what capitalism is, what countries are considered capitalistic, and whether or not reality as seen through capitalism is morally preferable to other perspectives of reality has made the discussion very difficult to continue due to how meaningless most of the discussions end up being, such that whenever i see an argument i get annoyed instead of considering it's validity, which makes me afraid of becoming closed minded. if i were more motivated, i could argue with genuine consideration, but i am embarrassed to say that the incentives to continue these kinds of debates is no where near being high enough to justify the time and effort i put into having them. due to that reason, i have been trying to distill my arguments as much as possible, such that if anyone properly addresses my argument it will convince me to reconsider my position, and if they don't, my opinion will stay the same. if you could tell me how to modify my arguments to be as strong, accurate, and to the point as possible, that would be very helpful.

my first point is that competition in a market increases opportunities. my perspective is that the more options you have, the more freedom you have in taking any given option, and the more adaptable the results are as a result. if you have all options, you have access to the best options, as well as the worst, thus you can create any scenario for yourself that you want as long as you know how to. when market competition is high, people will be more picky about their choices, allowing for niche markets that provide for more specific tastes, thus more options overall. people don't have to overthink it, but they can if they want, and it will have a noticeable impact on their lives moving forward. one implication of this is that it is possible to have socialistic tendencies if it is brought about through the market, for example, market socialism is just when the boss, who is viewed as a middle man, is no longer necessary for a business to function, say what you will about it's efficiency, but it could be done if there are enough people who want it. many socialists acknowledge this, which is why they make a distinction between early capitalism, which could be better described as consumerism, and "late-stage" capitalism, which is more like corporatism.

my second point is that there are no eternal winners in a free market. basically, this comes down to the idea that natural monopolies don't exist. the demand ceiling is infinite, the incentives to attack the most dominant businesses is as great as the dominance said businesses have over the market, there is enough ease of entry in a free market that any given market will usually be filled to maximum capacity, which tends to be higher due to the niche markets, there are so many competing markets that even if one market became a monopoly (plastic, lets say) another market would fill it's place (wood), class mobility is very high, and there are few effective ways to decrease ease of entry into any given markets, none of which are permanent (innovation can reduce ease of entry, so if a single business is so far ahead of it's competition technologically speaking that it has factories that would cost a lot to build, that could prevent new businesses from entering until the resources to build those factories get cheaper due to the demand for competition.), therefore the market will usually succeed in breaking up monopolies if left to it's own devices.

my third and final point is that any regulation that is not from the markets will decrease options, resulting in less competition. this is where your favorite argument, the economic calculation problem, comes in. it was inevitable that that argument would be somewhere in this distillation. when the market is not allowed to sets prices, the information from profits and losses is destroyed, same happens with unnecessary funding. in addition, market regulations decreases the opportunities for certain niche markets if it prevents them from using certain tactics to decrease costs. none of this usually matters if the market isn't being hindered by the regulations (a minimum wage set much lower than the natural market prices isn't going to hurt the market alone) but when market regulations and non-market regulations are conflicting, it results in an inefficient allocation of resources, which makes everything more expensive and less flexible, ultimately decreasing the competition that is so necessary in keeping capitalism properly functioning.

if competition is good, and the market increases competition while everything else decreases it, then the market is good in the same ways competition is good. all else is a discussion of personal preference (liberty lets you go your own way, but doesn't give you a map, and certainly doesn't guarantee you will succeed, so some people understandably don't like that kind of responsibility. you can probably get people to guide you through it, unions aren't inherently anti-capitalism unless they are collectivized/centralized, but people's preferences should be respected) and while this might not lay the foundations for every pro-capitalism, anti-socialism argument there is, i believe it is sufficient on it's own to justify the position in favor of capitalism, and i figure if it were inaccurate, it would probably go a far way in invalidating much of the justification for capitalism, at least for me, so i would say it is a pretty foundational set of arguments. if you have any suggestions, i would love to hear them. remember, this is supposed to be an ultimatum of an argument (if it fails, i will change my mind, and if it doesn't fail, i wont feel the need to bother arguing any further. i want it to be as important for justifying my continued support for this position as it is in justifying my continued opposition to the others. that is at least the rationale behind it for me.) thank you for reading this. even if you can't think of anything else to say, i would appreciate it if you could offer a more distilled, possibly more convincingly worded argument that goes over some of the same points if possible, i am basically trying to write a copypasta argument that doesn't need to be too long for the point to come across.

[adincehic]

Are you gonna make a part 2 of this viki1999 response

[anindividual]

It's like I said before, anyone who believes in labor theory of value is economically illiterate. The only reason labor can even influence price is when it influences scarcity, but people still have to want the product. The labor itself cannot set the value, the consumers do.