My understanding of Marxism is limited, but I imagine that in an economy of state run businesses and co-ops, the non-perishable labour you describe would become largely defunct. While there would undoubtably be some elements to still consider, would it really have such a large effect on the LTV theory to fundamentally challenge Marxism?
I'm not 100% sure what you mean when you say "non-perishable labour would become defunct".
If you're saying that non-perishable labour would be irrelevant, then yes this is largely true, and this is a core problem with Marxism and the LTV, in my opinion.
If you take for example, a non-perishable labour activity like improving an assembly line at a factory, it's possible this work could have taken a day, whilst the benefits are received for years into the future.
An LTV economy has 2 primary options here. They can either reward the individual who improved the assembly line for one day's worth of labour, or they can reward the individual for some of the value of the increased output.
If they reward the individual for just the one days worth of work, then you are removing the incentive to focus on non-perishable labour. So you remove the incentive to innovate and find efficiency improvements. When this is compared to an adjacent economy that doesn't do this, the economy that isn't incentivising efficiency improvements and innovation, will inevitably lag behind over decades.
The alternative would be to keep the incentive, at least in part, and give some sort of extra reward for efficiency improvements and innovations. If you ignore the practical difficulties of doing this, the main problem is that, even if you got this to work, it wouldn't be following the logic of the LTV. Because you would be giving extra reward for non labour time.
So, in the context of this argument, I wouldn't even be against implementing an economy that operates under the logic of the LTV, and also makes exemptions for innovations and efficiency improvements. But this simply breaks the logic of the LTV.
Is branding really just psychological manipulation of vulnerable psyches, and does not increase the value of future products in that line, but creates the illusion of increased value in a kind of imaginative idolatry?
Branding is one version of non-perishable labour. Non-Perishable labor would also include things like efficiency improvements, or spotting gaps in the market.
But, regarding specifically branding, even if branding creates the illusion of value, or imagined value, it was still the branding that created it. And this additional 'imagined value' is still able to be exchanged for money. So this additional money should still be attributed to the branding.
My understanding of Marxism is limited, but I imagine that in an economy of state run businesses and co-ops, the non-perishable labour you describe would become largely defunct. While there would undoubtably be some elements to still consider, would it really have such a large effect on the LTV theory to fundamentally challenge Marxism?
I'm not 100% sure what you mean when you say "non-perishable labour would become defunct".
If you're saying that non-perishable labour would be irrelevant, then yes this is largely true, and this is a core problem with Marxism and the LTV, in my opinion.
If you take for example, a non-perishable labour activity like improving an assembly line at a factory, it's possible this work could have taken a day, whilst the benefits are received for years into the future.
An LTV economy has 2 primary options here. They can either reward the individual who improved the assembly line for one day's worth of labour, or they can reward the individual for some of the value of the increased output.
If they reward the individual for just the one days worth of work, then you are removing the incentive to focus on non-perishable labour. So you remove the incentive to innovate and find efficiency improvements. When this is compared to an adjacent economy that doesn't do this, the economy that isn't incentivising efficiency improvements and innovation, will inevitably lag behind over decades.
The alternative would be to keep the incentive, at least in part, and give some sort of extra reward for efficiency improvements and innovations. If you ignore the practical difficulties of doing this, the main problem is that, even if you got this to work, it wouldn't be following the logic of the LTV. Because you would be giving extra reward for non labour time.
So, in the context of this argument, I wouldn't even be against implementing an economy that operates under the logic of the LTV, and also makes exemptions for innovations and efficiency improvements. But this simply breaks the logic of the LTV.
Is branding really just psychological manipulation of vulnerable psyches, and does not increase the value of future products in that line, but creates the illusion of increased value in a kind of imaginative idolatry?
Branding is one version of non-perishable labour. Non-Perishable labor would also include things like efficiency improvements, or spotting gaps in the market.
But, regarding specifically branding, even if branding creates the illusion of value, or imagined value, it was still the branding that created it. And this additional 'imagined value' is still able to be exchanged for money. So this additional money should still be attributed to the branding.