/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>How is value determined in the case of joint production?
The labor value of the chicken as a hole is the labor time it takes on average to raise a chicken.
The labor value of the chicken parts are the labor time it takes a butcher on average to chop off chicken parts and prepare them.
It makes no sense to ask about partial values of a chicken because you can't actually raise a partial chicken, there is no point of having imaginary accounting categories that do not exist in reality.
All money that you pay eventually ends up paying for human labor, you don't pay for things, that is an illusion.
For a planned economy when multiple people have to share the cost of raising a chicken, you start out with a simple ratio based on weight, and then you use a feedback system to fine tune the sharing ratio.
If you smoke a blunt the value of joint production becomes like transcendental.

>>410627
Is not the labour of raising the chicken embodied in the individual parts? To only account for the labour involved in dissecting the chicken is to pretend that it popped into existence on its own, unaided by human labour.

>>410627
>The labor value of the chicken parts are the labor time it takes a butcher on average to chop off chicken parts and prepare them.

It includes the labour value of the whole chicken as well. The "ingredients" are the constant capital part of value.

>>410631
>Is not the labour of raising the chicken embodied in the individual parts?
yes, but you are asking how many labor values can dance on the head of a pin, it's not related to any practical use for a planned economy
>>410637
yes

>>410637

Ah, I finally understand. This makes sense.

>>410647
Yeah, another way Marx describes this is by calling the inputs into production (the knife that cuts the chicken, the chicken's dead body, etc.) "dead labour", since every part of this has come from labour processes that have already taken place - and calling the new active labour required to produce the product "living labour". The dead labour doesn't create value, it's merely passed onto the new value of the new commodity.

It depends on what value you are talking about: In the sense of utility they are all, relatively, the same. In the since of exchange each part of the chicken is determined by the socially average amount of labor it takes to produce each individual part. E.G Exchange value.

>>410664
Your answer is horrendous compared to that of the other anons in this thread.

>>410653
If one item of constant capital is involved in the making of multiple different commodities, does it ever transfer different amounts of value to different commodities?

>>410668
That sounds like a good question. Do you have an example? If you used something divisible, like using a third of a litre of petrol, then I think you could say the labour transferred was a third of the value of the litre of petrol, for example. Not sure.

The influences between individual and society go in both directions, from society to the individual and from individual to society, but the direction society to individual is stronger. The influence mostly goes from the whole to the parts and not the parts to the whole. Likewise with the chicken. The value of the sum of the parts together is easy to figure out, but how is is distributed between the parts is not so easy and may not even have an answer.

You should make your scenarios as simple as possible first and then add the details. So we first don't even think about joint production. When we introduce joint production, what's the most simple way to do it? The answer is two outputs, so I'm afraid your chicken is too complicated. (But your example is a good choice in one aspect: to illustrate that the output proportions are technically given.) The producer selling the stuff has to cover the costs of running the operation, the two products together must yield enough money. But how is the money income stream split between these products? Anything goes. The producer only cares about the combined sum. The value is really only determined at the aggregate level, not at the level of the distinct outputs from the joint process.

Prices get constrained more when there is a choice in techniques and some thing X can be produced in either a joint process with Y or alone.

>>410480

I once asked Paul Cockshott the very same question (I had used wood and sawdust as the example), and his answer was similar to:

>>410898

In other words, the value can be split an arbritratily large number of ways between the multiple outputs in a given production process.

In practice for a planned economy there will likely be rules for how to split the costs from an input that has multiple outputs. For example the depreciation and amortization of a building with multiple productions occuring in it will likely be assigned by the cost by the % of total volume each process takes up inside it.

>>411125

*Last paragraph came out badly.
Rewrite:

In practice for a planned economy there will likely be rules for how to split the costs from an input that has multiple outputs. For example the depreciation and amortization of a building with multiple productions occuring in it will likely be assigned by the % of total volume each process takes up inside it.

Finding a theory of value is a lost cause.

>>410627
>The labor value of the chicken parts are the labor time it takes a butcher on average to chop off chicken parts and prepare them.
No that's moronic, chicken parts sell for significantly different prices despite not varying significantly in difficulty of butchery.

>All money that you pay eventually ends up paying for human labor, you don't pay for things, that is an illusion.
Tell me, when I pay rent, what labor am I receiving in exchange for permission to use someone's land?

>>411927
*besides permission

>>411927
1) How do you know that cutting up a chicken takes equal effort for each cut?
2) Labor is not the source of all wealth, since nature provides plenty of that
3) someone built the building you live in. Your landlord extracting rent is based upon him possessing it as private property, a social relation enforced by their control of state power that is the same as selling your labor power for employment, but not commodity exchange at the supermarket. The value of the building is dictated by labor, which dictates the price of rent that you must pay to your landlord.

>>412454
>1) How do you know that cutting up a chicken takes equal effort for each cut?
You know that by… doing it? What a question. Several parts of a butchered animal go for different prices. These individual prices do not reflect labor costs since the animal is a joint product, so you can't adjust the quantities produced independently from each other, it is the sum of prices of the sum of jointly produced parts (=the animal), which make you decide to raise more or fewer of them or to leave the business entirely.
>2) Labor is not the source of all wealth, since nature provides plenty of that
The other poster agrees with that and it was pointless to bring it up.
>3)The value of the building is dictated by labor
Buildings indistinguishable from each other but located in different places fetch different rent. Land with nothing on it is worth something based on location. You can argue it comes from labor, but it's involving far more people and in very indirect ways compared to how described it.

>>413223
> You know that by… doing it? What a question. Several parts of a butchered animal go for different prices. These individual prices do not reflect labor costs since the animal is a joint product, so you can't adjust the quantities produced independently from each other, it is the sum of prices of the sum of jointly produced parts (=the animal), which make you decide to raise more or fewer of them or to leave the business entirely.
I was asking if you yourself were either a butcher or a Poultry slaughterhouse worker. But I think you’ve answered your own question on account of the value being derived from processing the chicken as a whole rather than looking at all the individual parts. Which leads to the idea of wealth coming from natural sources in addition to human labor.
> it's involving far more people and in very indirect ways compared to how described it.
This doesn’t preclude it from involving labor and the character of labor under capitalism comprises of a bunch of people directly or indirectly working together in order to create a commodity, but ownership of productive forces and surpluses being a wholly private phenomenon.

>>410898
>>411125
>>411128
that's a satisfactory answer

I don't think people buy a single chicken liver, they usually buy a bunch. I don't see why a single chicken liver wouldn't just be a proportion of the sum of the chicken as a whole.