Chuanliu, on the Labor Theory of Value, Please Don't Pin Views Marx Criticized onto Marx!

The content of Chuanliu's "On the labor theory of value, Yunguzi is at least 100 times more correct than Tangfen" is basically the standard Western economics rebuttal of Marx, and therefore contains their standard errors -- for example, pinning views that Marx criticized onto Marx and then criticizing those as if they were Marx's views. For instance, in that post: (above the line is Chuanliu's original text quoted; below is my commentary)

"As a scientific proposition, the labor theory of value should be formulated as follows: the average price of a certain commodity in the market is a monotonically increasing function of labor time. What Smith and Marx saw as the labor theory of value actually also conveys this meaning: in the long run, the average price of a certain commodity in the market is proportional to the average labor time."
========
This has nothing to do with Marx's views. This is precisely the view of Proudhon that Marx criticized. Treating labor time as an a priori independent variable rather than a historical category is the common error of all non-Marxian views.

"As a scientific proposition, the labor theory of value was falsified from the day it was proposed, because even its founders admitted that the labor theory of value cannot explain the price anomalies of resource goods and luxury goods. To this day, if you calculate using actual statistical data, the ratio of land prices to labor time and the ratio of pork prices to labor time are not even of the same order of magnitude. Therefore, the labor theory of value is not an acceptable scientific theory."
=================================
Same error as the first paragraph -- still making labor time a priori. Since this error persists throughout the post, I won't specifically point it out each time below.

"In fact, the labor theory of value can't even explain such a universal phenomenon as 'things are valued for their rarity.'"
======================
The explanation for this is quite simple. For historical reasons, gold, for example, has a high exchange ratio when exchanged with other goods -- that is, a high exchange value. But this reason is not a priori. "Things are valued for their rarity" is not an a priori premise. The exchange value of an item is a historical concept. There is nothing that absolutely has exchange value. All exchange values are formed in the historical development of the comprehensive social structure of relations between people. The phenomenon of "things being valued for their rarity" is also formed in this historical development. Conversely, treating such historical phenomena as eternal, a priori premises is the root cause of corresponding errors.

"For example, there used to be someone called 'Timid Bat' who openly declared the labor theory of value to be a philosophical proposition, a religious proposition. But this already violates the original intent of the labor theory of value and enters the territory of sophistry."
=======
The criterion for judging whether one truly understands Marx is actually quite simple: reducing society's totality and historicity to any one-sided aspect of philosophy, economics, or psychology is non-Marxian. Having Marx's name slapped on your forehead doesn't make you Marxian.

"Although forum user Tangfen hasn't said it so bluntly, the substance is the same. Just going on about quantity this, quality that, going round and round, talking on and on, and after all that, never explaining what the actual relationship between labor time and price is."
===========
If labor time is a non-historical, non-social abstract physical time, then price has no necessary relationship with labor time. Linking price with abstract labor time has nothing to do with Marx. For Marx, price is the monetization of exchange value. And exchange value itself must be examined in terms of social totality and history -- no single factor can determine exchange value. And labor is likewise not an abstract concept but a historical category within the totality of relations between people in society. It's not just wielding a hoe or operating a machine that counts as labor!