Joke Collection Website - Talk about mood - What is the significance of the labor theory of value in Das Kapital today?

What is the significance of the labor theory of value in Das Kapital today?

The real labor theory of value can prove that the so-called GDP represents a social production relationship, and GDP does not exist at all. Because value is a kind of human labor. For example, the value of heterogeneous 1 pound beef and 1 ton cow dung may be equal, and their "usefulness" is different. Don't tell me that people who eat 1 pound of beef every day eat 1 t cow dung instead of 1 t beef. Exchangeable value is not "usefulness" but a kind of "human labor". Naturally, value is a kind of human labor, so GDP, as the sum of value, of course represents the sum of social domination over labor. Labor theory of value is not the theory that labor creates value, but the theory that value is human labor. Marx thought: "Value is undifferentiated human labor condensed in commodities." This definition of value is completely correct within the scope of capitalism. Labor is not wealth (use value), nature can create use value just like labor, and labor is only one of the manifestations of natural forces.

But labor is the only source of value. If we ask whether sunlight and air are valuable, we might as well ask whether they are "useful" but do not contain money (value or atoms in the air). People with a little brains think for themselves and don't answer this question. And the packaging of unearthed cultural relics does not contain value atoms? We can't deny that it may cost a lot of money. But the system as a whole does not devour labor, can its monetary quantity (value) be increased? Here, art buyers transfer their own value to art sellers, and whether the overall value of the system increases depends on the industry profit rate. Because of the cumulative competition of capital, that is, the pursuit of higher profits, the same amount of capital must have the same amount of profits, and competition will make the average profit rate between industries tend to be consistent, that is to say, the labor services engaged in the art industry will tend to a certain proportion.

Are you saying that the labor theory of value is wrong? Today, I want to ask those so-called factor axiologists, is it factor wealth theory or factor axiology? A theory is irrefutable. Can you wrap it like a paper fire in a twisted way?