could (not current) AI make it work or is it an inherently poopy system, doomed to fail even under an incorruptible, superintelligent agent?

>>82198921 (OP)
>doomed to fail even under an incorruptible, superintelligent agent?
no, AI can't solve the local knowledge problem

>>82198921 (OP)
The AI would need to monitor every transaction in real time and be able to make educated guesses as to future trends. Nothing we have currently operates on that scale or is able to do anything close to that complicated. If an individual firm fucks up, it goes bankrupt. If your AI fucks up, society crashes and burns.

I used to be in the "communism is good in principle but can never work" camp but I've settled on it being a bad idea even if it could work. I don't buy that labor is suddenly fulfilling if you're the owner

>>82199001
Gay space communism sounds good in principle though, doesn't it?

>>82199001
The main appeal of communism in theory to me is just maximizing free time. If you are rewarded more for your labor then you don't have to work as much.

>>82199052
The problem is that communism is typically less efficient at allocating resources so you work more for less. You're also less able to trade more effort in the present for less/no effort in the future like in capitalistic or mixed systems.

>>82198921 (OP)
Any country needs to be flexible to the times.
The USSR was about to switch to capitalism anyways because capitalism is more flexible but gorbachev was a limp wristed faggot and fucked everything up.

>>82198921 (OP)
>AI
>incorruptible, superintelligent agent
Hello? Isn't enforced wokinisation of the AI teach you a lesson?

>>82198921 (OP)
I would love to know how exactly you think AI could "solve" communism
It's not an issue with math or complexity, it's an issue with human nature

>>82199101
If AI took over the labor as well as the resource allocation then it would solve the human nature problem so long as the AI was somehow independent from society. That's essentially dictatorship by AI though and handwaves a lot of hard problems.

>>82199060
>>82199052
Problem with communism is that their cities would buried in trash and sewage and civilization would collapse. People under communism would be working as philosophers, thinkers, artists. But nobody would be maintaining sewers or picking trash.

>>82199116
Right so like I said, the problem is that communism is less efficient at allocating resources.

>>82199116
>maintaining sewers or picking trash.
drones/ai powered robots can pick trash. sewers are harder

>>82199115
>so long as the AI was somehow independent from society.
It was in Futurama already.

>>82198921 (OP)
The whole idea that you can make a system to run the world with a bunch of shitty data is a terrible one.

>>82199116
People already do those jobs for less reward than they would be offered under communism

>>82199144
Are you not aware that those people make great salaries and typically have solid pension plans?

>>82199131
As for now AI powered robots more successfully replaced artists than trash pickers ahahahaha!
Be careful with that AI thing, or under communism only job you will have is picking trash and cleaning toilets!

>>82198921 (OP)
>from each according to his ability, to each according to his need
This is an inherently unfair proposition. If you made communism work, it still wouldn't work, because what it does by design is bad.

People should get what their ability and labour earns them.

>>82199144
>can't comprehend alternative costs and rewards
Communists always were economically illiterate.

>>82199158
>allow me to reduce your position to this glib aphorism, then denounce its simplicity

>>82199155
>only job you will have is picking trash and cleaning toilets!
picking trash doesn't sound like a difficult problem for robots. cleaning toilets sounds harder.

>>82199152
They could have even higher pay if their boss didn't take profits out of their wages

>>82198921 (OP)
Its a inherently retarded poopy system doomed to fail. At least in the way Marx envisioned. Maybe perhaps possible in a thousand years when AI is actually good we actually have near infinite resources due to space mining technology then it could actually work for a few elites who then use it to kill the actual working class and create paradise for the rich jewish elites.

>>82199233
It'll probably be a lot less than a thousand years for AI to get there. I would be surprised if it took more than 100.

>>82199233
>At least in the way Marx envisioned
Can you explain? I haven't read a lot of Marx

>>82199164
No that is genuinely what communists believe though.

>>82199244
Marx envisioned the working class, the masses of peasants and poor people to rise up and over throw the elites. Marx had no conception of infinite AI slave labor which is the only thing that could actually make communism work at any level.

The point however is that realistically if AI is the only feasible way to enact communism the reality of the situation would not be the masses of people rising up against the elites to enact ownership of goods and resources. Even then there is a huge dilemma over the fact that resources are finite. Think peak oil.

So the reality of the situation would be rich elites hiring vast AI robot armies to genocide everyone that disagrees with their policies such as requiring registration for child birth or constant monitoring or a complete violation of every right you think you currently have. Or in essence the elite will use robots to massacre the working class Marx believed would be the beneficiaries of communism.

>>82199243
>100 years
even assuming exponential growth of AI its still a glorified chatbot.

300 years minimum before its actually capable of consciousness and self replication assuming we even have the resources for that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhwbUL2mJMs

>>82199288
>peak oil
Not a thing. Every peak oil prediction was wrong because every time the price of oil goes up, the R&D into oil exploitation also goes up. By the time we're actually out of oil we're going to have better alternatives, I mean, we already have better alternatives. So peak oil will actually never happen. I literally read nothing else in your post I just saw peak oil and sperged.

>>82199305
>peak oil isn't a thing
>by the time we are out of oil
>we already have better alternative such as cars using oil that run on batteries instead of gas
Yup, you're retarded.

>>82199302
>AI its still a glorified chatbot
I use AI daily and it's not a chatbot. There is more to the field than LLMs and transformers. I'm not watching your video, I don't care about YouTube slop. Consciousness is not 300 years away, that's insane. Arguably LLMs are already semi-conscious depending on your definition of the word.

>>82199322
Wow, so glad to hear. that. Hey I'm hear to listen. However I think you're retarded and haven't actually even attempted to test the limits of AI.

>>82199322
Also you should give the video a watch. Its hilarious. Hentschel isn't slop.

>>82199333
I have no idea what you're trying to say. Rephrase in proper English please.
>>82199340
Everything on YouTube is slop.

>>82199322
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak1iExV8Scc

>>82199348
Not watching it. Why does every schizo latch onto ChatGPT so hard?

>>82199356
>not watching it
Yeah, figures you're a complete faggot.

>>82199361
Take your pills dysgenic schizo mutt

>>82199346
>everything on youtube is slop
>actually uses AI to research things only to get the most shallow and basic responses
>on 4chan
kek. You "intellectuals" always make me laugh.

>>82199367
>no I will not watch a hilarious 5 minute video because it might change my perception of AI currently being great and amazing
>no I will continue to use AI as a glorified search engine and never actually chalenge its limits while claiming to know how advanced it is purely based off of what AI start ups tell me.

>>82199386
>hilarious
You have to be 18+ to post here.

>>82199394
This isn't even an argument, it makes no sense at all. Are you using AI rght now? I'm here to help. I hear you.

>>82199322
What do you use AI for?

>>82199403
Why are you so upset about me not watching your stupid video?

>>82199413
I'm more so upset at your denial of reality that all of the AI we have seen so far are glorified chatbots. Answer >>82199412 question.

>>82199412
Market forecasting

>>82199116
we have communism in america. single moms get free shit and never have worry about bills. they arent "philosophers"

>>82199424
>denial of reality that all of the AI we have seen so far are glorified chatbots
Anon are you stupid? LLMs are one part of the AI field. There are all manner of other models that operate on images, timeseries data, audio data, etc. Most AI models are not chatbots, they don't even operate on language. Fucking mongrel oh my god.

>>82198941
A succinct and correct first post that's a surprise.

>>82198921 (OP)
The main obstacle to Communism isn't human nature so an AI doesn't really matter. The main obstacle is that Communism cannot manifest until it is globally applied. A Communist state can't exist under a Capitalist global economy, because the Capitalists will simply declare war(or economic war) on it, and do whatever else they can to sabotage it, because a free society is an existential threat to Capitalism, as we saw with the Soviets. China has somewhat gotten around this obstacle by just appealing to the innate greed of the Western bourgeois, pretending to play along with their games, and it's working, but the Chinese are not interested in exporting Communism to the West.

As I see it, the only way to achieve Communism in America is just waiting for Trump to inevitably destroy his own country, which he's doing a great job on, and just building it out of the ashes of America afterwards. American society as it currently exists is completely incompatible with concepts like "sharing" or "fairness" or "solidarity" so I just don't think even an AI can achieve much.

that 1 r*ddit screenshot of a tankie asking for studies that prove centralized markets work

>>82199158
>earns
what does this mean?
what does earning something entail? as in, is it what you can get out of the market? what you can get through outmaneuvering others? what you can get through theft and deception? what does "earning" really mean? if I murder a billion people and steal their wealth, did I earn it? if I go digging in the mud and find a diamond worth $1,000,000 did I earn it? If I make a fake business and defraud the government out of millions, did I earn that? Is literally anything one does to obtain profit acceptable so long as you win out in the end?

>>82199288
That is the danger of "building" communism replcing human labor with robots.
Communism core "everyone works". If people don't work but outsource labor to robots, why do we need humans again? That is final logical step of communism. Revolution of robotic proletariat removing social parasites (humans).

>>82199444
>Capitalists will simply declare war(
Capitalists didn't declare war on USSR

>economic war
Using marxist theory explain why do communist need to trade with capitalist.
BTW bolsheviks were first who declare global embargo on the entire world in 1917. And now communists cry about freedom of trade? Pleeeease. USSR never had freedom of trade.

>>82199468
Capitalism already wants to automate as much labor as possible though. It's more profitable to have machines than people. Basically all of modern history is using technology to reduce the amount of labor needed to make things.

>>82199489
How this will change fact that communists would genocide human proletariat as soon as it would be replaced by robots?

>>82199487
>Using marxist theory explain why do communist need to trade with capitalist.
Because resources are finite? I don't understand your premise. If all the drinking water was located in a Capitalist state would you just die of dehydration rather than trade with them? If Capitalists control 90% of the world's resources, your only option is to trade for what you can't produce yourself. Ignoring economics entirely, you have to play by the rules of Capitalism to participate in Capitalist markets, because the world is not about philosophy or ideology but simply a bunch of independent actors all acting in their own self-interest.

The Chinese are happy to buy raw materials from Capitalist states under Capitalist rules(scamming, dodging regulations, enslaving workers) and then sell it back to the Capitalists under Socialist rules after developing those resources into cheap plastic crap to be sold at 1,000% markup to stupid white people to fund the Chinese middle class.

>>82199164
Its your prophet's own aphorism though...

>>82199460
Maybe by contributing to society perhaps? We shouldn't pay welfare to people who don't contribute, and we should reward people who do contribute. Leftists love taking from the tax-paying class to give to the tax-extracting class.

>>82199507
If you assume that robots are going to genocide everyone once they replace labor, what does that have to do with communism? Capitalist elites could do the same thing for the same reasons

>>82199444
Any system reliant on community is doomed to fail because humans are sadistic pieces of shit and will fuck everything up

>>82199527
>If all the drinking water was located in a Capitalist state
Strawman argument. USSR didn't import drinking water.
Also i am pretty sure i remember Soviet propaganda how they bosted of having largest resources deposits of everything.

>>82199552
>what does that have to do with communism?
That is the core premise of teh communism. That value is created by labor. So producers of labor would dominate society one way or another (Revolution etc).
Big mistake is latching on communism under danger of your labor replaced by robots Because communism have no place for unemployed.

>>82199546
>Maybe by contributing to society perhaps? We shouldn't pay welfare to people who don't contribute, and we should reward people who do contribute.
I agree, but that would involve culling the wealthy who extract more wealth than they produce. Bill Gates hasn't "worked" in nearly 20 years and is still worth $100,000,000,000. Do you think Bill Gates contributes more than the entire state of West Virginia? We should pay people for their contribution to society, not what wealth they can steal from those around them. The stock market should not exist. Landlords should not exist. These people contribute nothing to society except hording resources. They don't "produce" anything.

>Leftists love taking from the tax-paying class to give to the tax-extracting class.
Most of your taxes aren't going to welfare, they're going to rich dipshits scamming the taxpayer and then never paying it back
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/musk-government-contracts-spacex-tesla-taxes-b2703141.html

>>82199552
>robots are going to genocide everyone
No, you're still too retarded to understand. Robots are tools, like soldiers but better because they follow orders no matter what.

>>82199527
>because resources are finite
This literally goes against marxist doctrine lol.

>>82199595
>, not what wealth they can steal from those around them. The stock market should not exist. Landlords should not exist. These people contribute nothing to society except hording resources. They don't "produce" anything.
Funny thing how you mentioned all these negatives (as you think). But missed fractional reserve banking... Who can be behind this post...
You work... i buy your labor with money i printed... (and this is fine according to you!)

>>82199595
>Do you think Bill Gates contributes more than the entire state of West Virginia?
A decaying cow contributes more than the entire state of West Virginia.

>>82199605
No it doesn't? Point me to where Marx says you can magick resources out of thin air.

>>82199611
I don't believe banks should exist outside of the state owned bank so idk what point you're trying to make. Money is a means to an end. People shouldn't be making a fortune manipulating spreadsheets of other people's money. Get a fucking job you bourgeois parasite.

>>82199620
>doesn't understand banking at all
>angry anyway
I guess ignorance isn't bliss after all

>>82199620
>so idk what point you're trying to make.
That you was caught by bankers into perfect Kabbalah trap.
You bark at enemies they pointed you to bark when they continue to rob you and everyone with their convoluted financial system 99,9% of people don't understand and nobody is aware of that.

>>82199636
Anyone with at least a BSc in Economics should understand the banking system. It's not that complicated.

>>82199595
>bill gates doesn't deserve his wealth because he isn't currently laying bricks

Where does this form of retardation come from. You're using a windows machine aren't you?

Who actually adds more value to society in your mind. A plumber who fixed plumbing issues for one house a day every year, thats 365 houses a year or the guy who invents a plumbing tool that saves millions of plumbers hours of work on every job measuring in total about hundreds of thousands of hours of time saved on labor?

Like communist actually genuinely believe the guy hand carving gnomes should make more money than the guy who invented a machine to mass produce garden gnomes.

>>82199636
I think you're just arguing with a strawman here. Marxists hate (((bankers))) more than anyone. Where is the mythical Zionist Marxist you speak of?

>>82199657
The soviets who founded the jewish oblast

>>82199620
>magick
>Point me to where Marx says you can magick resources out of thin air.
The part where he believes high stage communsim will lead to post scarcity in which he believe production would be at such a great level that resources would no longer be scarce.

>>82199672
Post scarcity can only work with a limited population

>>82199657
>Marxists hate bankers
>except actually they don;t and they never mention banking and only complain about rich people who created useful services or products everyone uses like amazon.

>>82199683
Which would only occur by mass genocide of the masses.

>>82199683
Could just expand the economy faster than the population. Something like The Culture works out with some magic sci fi handwaving of known physical law.

>>82199651
Bill Gates hasn't worked on Windows since Windows 2000. He didn't even work on Windows XP. Yet his wealth has only grown since then. Is that a reflection of his labor or contribution to society?

Linux is free, as in 100% free. Linus Torvalds is middle class and doesn't make a cent off your Liunux installation. The vast majority of servers, as in the kind of computers used in critical business infrastructure, are running Linux, not Windows. Hypothetically, based on this theory of "contribution" Linus should be worth more than Bill Gates.

In fact virtually every proprietary piece of computer software you use makes use of open source code: code that was created by an individual and released and distributed for free, for the betterment of mankind, without an expectation of profit. Are these people just idiots for not profiting? If their software wasn't free, the internet would probably be years behind due to licensing and cost issues making it prohibitively expensive to make literally ANY software. Just as an example it'd be incredibly expensive to make image editing software because of ImageMagick being literally the only option for editing raster images, and what everyone from Adobe to MSPaint to 4chan's tegeki editor use in their code.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImageMagick

>>82199706
>normative statements
I like how Marxists are just moralists lol

>>82199706
>Bill Gates hasn't worked on Windows since Windows 2000. He didn't even work on Windows XP. Yet his wealth has only grown since then. Is that a reflection of his labor or contribution to society?
Yes actually
>linux is free
Cool, nobody fucking uses it because its shit and I say this as someone currently using linux.

I like this cope though
>Bill Gates doesn't deserve his wealth for making home computers a household product because linux exists I guess

For a communist who is all about helping the people you only ever seem interested in limited their access to things such as easy to use computers and cheap mass produced products. its as if you'd rather people live without chairs than accept that a chair factory is a good thing.

>>82199657
My point is that 90% of negatives of the modern economics system comes from fractional reserve banking that constantly transfers wealth from people who produce value to symbiote of financial system and state who dont produce value.
While people are unaware for that at al land aim their disappointment and anger on capitalist institutions that are actually fine (but fueling them with money printing isn't).

This means situation absolute can not be realistically fixed. Because "other side" like supposedly socials Democrats are fine with fractional reserve banking and are happy to redouble money printing themselves.

>>82199719
There's nothing moralist about my statement. Marxists should take back the means of production for their own self interest, not because of any morals. Rich people aren't just "creating" money out of thin air. They're stealing it from you. Every cent in Elon Musk's bank account is stolen from the proletariat.

>>82199724
>nobody fucking uses it
you're a fucking retard.

>>82199734
>android
Holy shit the massive fucking cope is unreal. No. Touch grass. Everyone uses mac or windows. Thats literally it. like 2% of the entire world population uses linux despite the fact that its free and open source. It shit.

>>82199741
>like 2% of the entire world population uses linux despite the fact that its free and open source. It shit.
Consumer devices.
You post these posts on site that is run by Linux server.

>>82199734
Also
>muh open source software made for the betterment of mankind
No, it was made by autists who thought it was fun as a hobby. There was nothing so grand humanist about it. You're a fucking retarded faggot trying to compare the act of sharing porn with other internet users as some glorious humanitarian effort of intentional betterment of humanity. They built something for themselves and said fuck it, lets share it with everyone else since they had no means or interest in profiting from it.

>>82199734
>There's nothing moralist about my statement
Almost everything you said was normative. And the post I'm replying to now was almost entirely normative. You are a moralist.

>>82199745
>consumer devices
Exactly. Bill gates made computers a household name, devices that weren't for fucking autistic nerds that a real actual working class person would have the time to understand and use. You despise this concept of course. You probably call it streamlining and accuse anyone of not having 100 hours to waste learning to use a terminal a retard.

Hello world. I'm not posting this image for the lulz, I'm not posting it for fun. I'm not even posting it to share it or own the reds. No, in fact I'm a fucking hero to society. I share this image purely out of an altruistic desire to better human kind, a hope that one day humanity will rise from the darkness. Please enjoy

>>82199774
>accuse anyone of not having 100 hours to waste learning to use a terminal a retard.
we could've just taught kids how to use terminals in school like we teach them how to read. you're just a retard that needs to be spoonfed and thinks bill gates invented the GUI(he didn't btw). the only thing revolutionary about Windows compared to its competitors at the time was Bill having rich parents to fund his company.

>>82199795
>we could've just taught kids how to use terminals in school like we teach them how to read
Nah, they have too much homework and bullshit about communist revisionist history on their plates already.

Also why computers? Why should they learn about computes instead of learning how to build cars or frame a house? pretty fucking narrow minded of you.

>>82199795
You can have both GUI and terminal. There is no need to omit one or another.

>>82199795
>Bill gates wasn't the only one with a GUI
So why didn't the other companies every take off? If they did would they deserve millions of dollars or would they only deserve a gift card to chuckie cheese?

>>82199812
Correct which is why every Linux consumer OS has had a GUI since the 90's so idk what the point of this discussion is. Bill Gates didn't invent the GUI nor did he revolutionize computing in any meaningful way besides marketing. That doesn't entitle him to $100,000,000,000 in net worth just because he's a good salesman.

>>82199819
>So why didn't the other companies every take off?
I don't know, do you think Labubus and Funkos are a superior product to their competition?

>>82199828
>labubus and funkos
But wait, I thought communist would provide society with everything they wanted?

Are you saying that these products that bring joy to millions of people isn't valuable because you deem it to not be enjoyable personally?

What about tv shows, Do tv shows reaching 10's of millions of people not deserve to make more money than a single person who only manages to build one wooden table a day?

At this point you're just straight up denying the benefits that came with industrialized society.

>>82199840
>Are you saying that these products that bring joy to millions of people isn't valuable because you deem it to not be enjoyable personally?
No, I don't care what people consume for fun. The point is they aren't providing a "benefit" to society. Funkos should not be worth more than some people's houses. I don't care if some billionaire is willing to pay that much for it. Toys have their place in society but if we're operating under the assumption labor should be rewarded based on its benefit to humanity then a Funko shouldn't be worth much. I'd pay maybe $1 for it. No, I don't care what normies would pay for it, it'll never be worth more than $1 to me. Supply/Demand doesn't change just because you psyop a population into thinking something is worth more than it is. That's fraud.

>>82199864
>The point is they aren't providing a "benefit" to society
According to you. What benefits society is entirely subjective. You're again revealing your autism in believing that anything that doesn't produce food water and shelter is worthless.

The internet as we know it today was created for porn. Does porn benefit society?

>>82199864
Its just sad because communists always think they're men of the people but the reality is that they want to dictate what people do and don't do.

Oh you want to spend 10 dollars on a luxury milk shake. NO, that doesn't benefit the people and the person selling those luxury milk shakes doesn't deserve the wealth he accrues making them because milkshakes should be cheap synthetic McDonald garbage and only cost 5 dollars!

Can you name a single way 4chan has benefited society? And yet here you are.

>>82199864
You acknowledge the factors of supply and demand and then you claim its not real because the demand for a product doesn't meet your personal standards.

I would never in my life spend a single cent on a katana. This doesn't mean that Katanas are worth 0 dollars and anyone produces them doesn't deserve money just because I personally don't have any demand for one.

>>82199873
>Does porn benefit society?
Yes, why wouldn't it?
And no, I'm not basing it on my personal subjective tastes or just the basic necessities. Everything in the world has inherent value. We should attempt to respect the effort a creator put in their work while simultaneously not allowing them to defraud their customers or extract more from the economy than they produce.
If a Funko is able to inspire 1,000 children then the people who produce it should be rewarded. Not the person who "invented" it, but the people actually making the Funkos on the factory line. The "creator" should get his own reward but it doesn't entitle him to claim the labor of the workers as his own. He put in his labor and should be compensated for it. Nothing more, nothing less.

ASI could help usher in a post-scarcity welfare state but no it could not make communism work

it could make it not horrible but it would still not be able to make it better than capitalism. humans are far from the intelligence cap but the cap doesn't go so far that it summons magic

>>82199864
>more normative statements
Bro failed out of Econ 101

>>82199012
>Gay space communism sounds good in principle though, doesn't it?
but that's best implemented as liberal-capitalist social democracy with something akin to UBI, with or without AI

so yes, but no because it won't actually be the thing

>>82199950
I agree, all the good representations of gay space communism are just post scarcity liberal societies. Capitalism and communism stop meaning much post scarcity I guess.

>>82199938
>Yes, why wouldn't it?
Why would it? Does LITERALLY jacking off. benefit society. Is it not a waste of time?

>the factory workers who make funko pops should be rewarded
So the artist who designed the funko pop should just die homeless? And what if there's only 2 people making funko pops in the entire factory. Ah I guess then they either do or don't deserve a lot of wealth depending on how valuable you personally perceive funko pops

>it doesn't entitle hm to claim the labor as his own
Yes it does, he invented it. Without him it would not exist. Just like software. Software is easier for you to understand this concept I'm sure. I single person can make software that makes work flow easier for billions of people. If he chooses to monetize it, why is he and he alone not worth the millions and millions of dollars the collective world decided to give him for his software? Why would he have a moral obligation to give that software away for free?

This all started because you complained that a person who is rich doesn't deserve to be rich despite creating a household item.

>maslows heirarchy of needs
Jewish bullshit that has never once actually been property studied or proven correct empirically.

>>82199922
>This doesn't mean that Katanas are worth 0 dollars and anyone produces them doesn't deserve money
A katana isn't worth what someone is willing to pay for it. It's worth the cost of labor + resources it took to make it. Whether someone pays for it is pretty independent of its inherent value. But whether someone pays for it or not, the worker shouldn't starve just because societal tastes prefer Funkos over katanas.
Conversely though, if your katana and/or funko produces no direct value to anyone, it's not their responsibility to pay for it just to keep your business afloat. Under capitalism, you as the producer are responsible for determining what people are "willing" to pay for, and if you guess wrong, you starve and all your workers whom had no choice in the matter will also starve.

Under a centrally planned Communist economy, the government determines what will provide the most value to their society, and you as the producer will be rewarded regardless of whether the government's analysts are wrong or not in telling you to produce katanas. If shit goes tits up, your workers still have guaranteed jobs as blacksmiths, and you will still have a job managing the factory. The people facing the consequences of a bad prediction are those at the top of the hierarchy, the ones that ordered you to make katanas. That's the primary appeal of central planning desu.

>>82200009
>A katana isn't worth what someone is willing to pay for it.
It literally is you fucking retard. Not even going to bother reading the rest.

labor does not equate to value.

>>82200009
>A katana isn't worth what someone is willing to pay for it
Of course it is lmao
>It's worth the cost of labor + resources it took to make it
If a building gets built out of toxic waste, is it worth the same as a normal building? Labor Theory of Value is retarded. Marginalism is all you need.