>>23037046>surplus valuein marx's extension of the LTV, value is defined as a measure of "socially-necessary labour time"
its conclusion: the difference between the labour time actually worked, and the labour time needed to reproduce labour, is surplus value, which is 'extracted' by the businessman who bought the factory and machinery to facilitate the labour in the first place, but who doesn't deserve any of the profit
since marx's concept of 'surplus value' directly derives from his redefinition of 'value', his theory presupposes its own conclusion—that labour is the source of all value
'begging the question' is a fallacy which occurs when an argument's premise assumes the truth of the conclusion; the conclusion of surplus LTV-value extraction, as defined by Marx, only makes sense if you accept the LTV's initial redefinition of value to mean LTV-value
it's impossible to arrive at a conclusion about LTV-value which doesn't already rely on and assume the premise of the LTV
if value isn’t determined by labour time (and without redefining it, it isn't), then surplus LTV-value cannot be extracted, because it simply doesn't exist
to accept the LTV is to accept a tautological, circular, and linguistically sophistic redefinition of the word 'value', without any evidence for the validity of this redefinition, save the LTV itself
the LTV begs the question
